Today's the big day for Digital Britain. The consultations have produced a very long wish list. I expect Ben Bradshaw will read out his in Parliament this afternoon. In a ‘simultaneous broadcast’ (how quaint) Lord Carter will be presenting the outcomes of his investigations into the state of Britain as a digital nation at the RSA. So listen in to Parliament this afternoon.
Early reports indicate that a lot of people will be disappointed. In order of moan, the music industry will be upset that the government is unlikely to ‘criminalise’ filesharers. Fans of local news will have to put up with the fact that people don’t buy local papers any more. Court reporting from the Norwich assizes will be given over to Google. The Technology industry will think the government isn’t going far enough, especially in relation to developing a ‘next generation’ infrastructure.
The BBC will think it’s got off lightly, frankly. Ofcom will become busier. My mum won’t really care. Broadband is important to her, but not actually as important as water, or electricity, or chocolate, for that matter.
My wish list? 3 million more homes online. Phone boxes should become internet points (as opposed to condom dispensers). And creating a digital economy that supports British content production in a more intelligent way than previously, which actually comes from software rather than hardware, and from people rather than pipes.
I’d like to see a British Google, Digg or Microsoft. But somehow I don’t see that coming about as a result of policy thrash.
And the outcome? There'll be ideas for government policy that will either legislate for uncompetitiveness (Korea and Japan already have far more advanced internet infrastructures) and force media companies into accepting changing state for the future. There'll be liberal protectionism for the past (especially in salvaging lTN with BBC monies). It'll certainly be a long list of wishes. But as ancient Jinn will tell you, three's probably enough.
Follow me on Twitter
no comments
Anyone familiar with this brief? "We've been working on this for nearly a year, but we're not sure we've got anything good. You need to come up with a plan by next week that will save the world." Alright, it's not quite like that, but I was struck by the similarities between watching the Digital Britain Conference panel debates and the innumerable briefing meets I've been to over the years where the digital question has created an atmosphere of confusion, excitement, panic and opportunity amongst those charged with stewarding brands into the future. Everyone knows that a 'lick of digital paint' isn't quite enough. But nobody knows quite enough to make a decision. And those that do know feel they haven't been consulted.
In the case of Digital Britain, there are big unanswered questions. Defining 'digital' is problematic enough. Although the official consultation period was drawing to an end, it felt right to do something about these questions by posing them to a wider community of those who have been involved in the digital economy for rather longer than Lord Carter. From an original tweet by Bill Thompson on the backchannel at Gordon Brown's Digital Conference, 12 unconferences were held (including London, Manchester, Glasgow and Cornwall) to discuss the interim report and provide useful feedback for the Digital Britain team at BERR. Most of the communication took place on twitter (unconference was, briefly, a trending topic). The outputs of these sessions were compiled and edited into a series of reports, and then edited into a single submission given in this week, which the Digital Britain team are reading 'with interest'.
Will it make a difference? I hope so. Was it worth it? I guess so. As a whole new model of consultation it was an experience of our age, truly collaborative, intense, interested, bright people, with an interest in 'doing something important' and 'doing the right thing.' If only agencies could work this way.
The full report is available here. Other comments are available here, and here.
Fresh from the G20, so might be a bit of overclaim. Yet the ‘dodge-it-all’ bandwagon carries on apace, with #digitalbritain trending top on Twitter on Friday. Gordon gets digital, it says on the live feed twitter fail, lampooned so cruelly in the Telegraph. But the politicians aren’t saying very much really, other than now that the rest of the economy is fucked, it’s down to the digital economy to save the nation. Give or take an embarrassing email or two. Does that sound familiar to anyone in agency land?
I think there’s a problem defining the digital economy. Sly Bailey thinks it is EVIL. And is DESTROYING JOURNALISM, along with local councils whose efforts to publish Redbridge council newsletters should be BANNED. Lord Mandelson thinks it is the infrastructure and investment backbone the nation needs to prepare for the future. The Chinese government thinks it a means to take over the world. Will Hutton says the Long Tail is nonsense and we are slipping relentlessly towards a disturbing world of enormous monopolies. Lord Carter thinks it should spawn new business models. Lord knows how that’s going to happen whilst the majority of the consultative process takes place with the institutional behemoths of telecoms, media and technology.
And poor Stephen Fry – his ‘internet should be like driving’ analogy was rather shot down in flames, apposite given Mandelson’s efforts to bail out the flailing ‘British’ car industry. There is a serious debate to be had about digital skills, which lost its way on the day in the crossfire of opinion about how the education system doesn’t teach critical thinking anyway. Expecting teenagers to apply thoughtful analysis to web browsing habits is ignorant to the point of ridiculous. Note to self – distinguish between the development of creative and technical skills that school the talent that will keep the nation great from the general IT literacy and media literacy content of the national curriculum that will help the nation keep up.
Funnily enough, this digital conference diversity reflects the agency world quite well. Two schools of though are forming. Introducing, in the blue corner, the ‘old’. Without true expertise and effort to create new models of thinking, working and creating, this group will truck along into a state of blissful monopoly and lowest economic denominator of quality and nostalgia, until Google one day does swallow up WPP, Havas or indeed Trinity Mirror. And in the red corner, welcome the ‘new’ challengers who will reshape the way business is done, who seamlessly move between code and creativity in their arguments. What can we learn from the experiences of the digital agencies? There’s a decent body of people out there that really understand the digitisation of media, the democratization of content and on-demand business. Wouldn’t you rather hear from someone with ten years experience of articulating the value of user experience versus brand positioning, at the coalface of digital strategy?
Then there’s the third corner, the purply beige regulator, who looks at the ‘big picture’ of protecting the establishment whilst claiming to encourage innovation. As anyone involved in the start up scene will tell you, you don’t get much help with the latter from this government. Hats off to the founders of Bebo and Lastminute who’ve just set up an angel fund to support innovative businesses, identifying a real gap in the market for the micro-business community of new ideas. I’m an enormous fan of innovation, but short of the occasional social media start up, we aren’t seeing very much of it reported at the moment across Brand Republic. Yes, economic consolidation is a blunt instrument, bashing the experimental with the tried and tested.
Don’t take pioneer status for granted. Get involved in the Digital Britain debate. It’s more important than you think. For a start, you can follow the #unconference we’re putting together by searching #dbuc or @dbuc [ok, so you need to be on twitter for that]. Alternatively, contribute to the Fake Digital Britain report here, and test your digital literacy skills to the full. Beats writing to your MP.
follow me on twitter
An Econsultancy survey this week revealed that 75% of the top UK digital agencies don’t have Twitter accounts. Oops. Gotta love the irony, since these agencies usually boast that marketers prefer their agencies to practise what they preach, and should use the social tools they offer advice on, compared to what George Parker calls the BDAs (almost none* of which are on Twitter). It’s opened up the well-travelled discussion about why agencies don’t advertise themselves, or tweet, or have official Facebook pages and so on.
The full list of shame is available here. It’s a bit bloody, as there are plenty of comments from agencies cross that they were left off the list, but as in any assessment of the agency scene, there are many small agencies with energetic attention to any way of promoting themselves, and perhaps more cumbersome agencies that, arguably, have become a bit relaxed or paranoid behind their brand names. Mind you, the list surveyed isn’t exhaustive or representative of the entire agency community, but raises interesting parallels between the blurring of the corporate and the personal opinion.
It’s good to see so many agencies allowing their staff to tweet (and blog) freely, and people do step up with personal accounts and regular opinion. Would it be possible to stop them, though? There are notable instances where the tweeting and blogging individuals garner greater reputations and following than the agency brands they represent. I suppose it’s like having the columnists people bought papers for and not untypical for a business sector which is so personality driven. On the other hand, neatly put by one tweet “I asked if I could tweet about what I’m doing and got told nobody’s ever asked that before, can I get back to you”. They never did, and said twitterer left that agency shortly after.
* in Campaign's top ten anyway - comments welcome
75% of the world’s top advertisers and 80% of the UK’s are working with Facebook, says Blake Chandlee at today’s FT Digital Media conference [#ftmedia]. I love getting predictions right. Now the debate has moved on. It isn’t about getting it, it’s about measuring it. Doh. Instead of reach and frequency, we should be measuring interactions and engagement. Doh. Expect to hear more of the phrase ‘user connections per year’ in the coming year. Doh.
Now over the past couple of years in my companies we expended hours of angst and technical effort to build models that link online advertising activity with website traffic. It’s amazing to me how separate these [still] can be in the corporate world. Especially when it comes to business audiences, who spend most of their time online using client (that’s a technical term) communication tools. Interestingly, the 20th century model of agency infrastructure – a more generous definition than ‘BDA’ perhaps - created discipline specific revenue generating lines that often struggled to combine forces and do the right thing for the Clients' brands.
The Clients (the ones that pay the bill) were excited by these efforts. But not everyone was. The new measurement system exposed some quite glaring weaknesses in the world according to GAAP (that’s my personal definition of Generally Accepted Advertising Practise). Oh, how we argued wth all our other agency colleagues. We had simply set out to get a better bang from the online buck, we said. We weren’t planning to solve world peace or reorganise the entire marketing communication process. But in the end, that’s what's needed, and that's what's happening too.
I’m not keen on creating yet another social media discipline-specific argument. I am interested, however, in how brands go to market, how media is organised, how consumers engage with media, and how consumers engage or ignore brands. It’s clear from Facebook’s numbers that brands getting it isn’t the problem. brands are having a go. If you’re not online, you’re not on the map. It’s a more a question of how much control the brand's prepared to give up in the process, and who to turn to for advice.
George Parker on this site been railing at the average adverati’s incompetence with these social technologies and facile obsession with the next big thing bandwagon. He’s right (with notable exceptions on Brand Republic, of course) in the sense that there aren’t many agency CEO types who write their own blogs or twitter much. Funnily enough, a survey in October last year by Sapient* put understanding digital as a top priority for global CMOs, and agencies that understand digital as a DNA thing rather than an acquired thing should do well. I’d argue that there’s a starker truth behind this. Clients don’t want to pay agencies to learn on their paid time.
Reflection from the digerati at the FT conference so far is positive, and notably setting the agenda for everything else in adland. Plenty has happened in the last year that elevates the argument about common metrics, engagement, redefining media, redefining content and the role of the brands in providing the financial oxygen upon which media has traditionally depended. We have a long way to go, but it’s good every now and again to recognise how far we have come.
*Sapient is an interactive agency. Survey results: unsurprising.*Sapient’s numbers look quite good at the moment.
We all know how hard it is to win accounts, and how easy it is to lose them. Complacency is a disease that can attack the big networks at the core. Everything seems fine one minute, and some random project done by a tiny agency in Latvia suddenly gets dumped in your lap as the new global campaign idea. As Jerry Della Femina wrote, “The Client is lost as soon as it’s won, it’s just a matter of time.” And this doesn’t just affect the big networks; the tiniest agencies of all remain at the beck and call of outrageous fortune too.
The one thing that the smaller agencies can say truthfully though, is that it usually is down to them. In the networks, it’s easier to point the finger at others. And it frankly, often isn’t “the London Agency’s fault.” I’m sure we’ve all got hard and good experience of that, winning awards in the outposts of global marketing effort, but the client moves because the ‘global’ guys aren’t up to the mark or whatever. (I’m told that actually is the most common reason.) In the small agency, you live or die by your relationships and the value you bring on a daily basis to the Client’s business. The smaller you are, the more you tend to think about that, with no cushion of ten other global clients competing for the attention of your best people. People move, jobs change, markets change, yes, we all get that. But forgetting about what the Clients are worried about where and when it matters, usually before notice is served, remains unforgivable.
Another angle on this nutty little problem centres around where innovation comes from. A very clever marketing director told me once that in our business, innovation comes from the edges; sustainability comes from the core. Harsh, but fair. That’s why the Lithuanian mobile voting project on Twitter tends to get arguably more attention than it deserves from the CMO. And is used as a stick to beat the ‘big’ agency with. Turning ‘experimental’ work into a central platform for communication strategy is not simple to pull off, and there is bitterly argued example of this from all sorts of businesses around the world. (See lots of Cannes winners for details.)
So what’s the answer? Wouldn’t it be great if everyone the Client knew who was really good could think about the problem? Unfettered by agency P&L walls and wars, and the political machinations of control, how much fun could be had by everyone. This is what Clients (or some I’ve met recently, anyway) say they want. Paul Phillips at the AAR did a talk at the back of last year, for their relaunch, confirming that there were less and less ‘discipline specific’ agency briefs, and an increase in ‘marketing problem’ specific briefs. It’s a clue, isn’t it. Of course it still remains vital that Clients believe that you know what you’re talking about, get the space and the problems they face. They want senior people with insight and foresight. They often want things to be simpler. One agency rather than nine. And boutiques as well.
We’ll see more of this in the coming months, I’m sure, as Clients shrink their budgets and look to the agency supply chain for savings/value/people they want to stick with. At the school debating society, we used to have balloon debates, you know, where you argue who should be thrown out of the balloon as it ran out of air and descended slowly towards shark invested waters. Each debater booted extended the life of the others, until there was only one left. (A concept popularised by reality TV in more recent years). Well, balloon debates with clients are back. Big time. Make your cases sharp and quick, everyone.
Neatly put by the bloggers today – why don’t we just call it the Carter Report as opposed to the Digital Britain report? I get that it’s a status report on Government not of Government, but it’s a pretty big deal altogether and needs a lot of thought. Unpicking the innumerable strands that make up what Digital Britain is by no means a simple task, but then neither is creating a digital economy out of nothing. Critics of the report have suggested that there is a little too much ‘old media’ in it rather than new media. Peter Bazalgette today at the NESTA debate likened this to propping up the shipbuilding industry in the 70s. Given the news stories around LDV (that great engineering firm once known as Leyland Daf Vans) seeking a relatively paltry sum to stay alive yesterday, it seems an apposite analogy.
I also think there is rather more to content than TV shows and music clips, and the media publishers need to step into the fray a little more with points of view about their economic models of the future. There’s also a relatively new and ever fragile economy creating start up businesses, but this vital and future focussed segment has been ignored by the Digital Britain report, so far anyhow. One could argue that the fragility of the whole economy is more pressing, but encouraging innovation around the edges of the content industry, and commercial advertising industry, has to be an outcome of any discussion around Digital Britain.
The Creative Britain report was about helping creative business move from the margins to the mainstream. The Digital Britain report is about establishing a proper platform for the digital economy, and will have far reaching impact across many industries, not just this one.
From a creative perspective, the Government is keen to leverage Britain’s internationally-recognised talent in online, as well as move on from a leading position in global entertainment formats, advertising, marketing services and research. There is indeed a lot to do to take the economy back from gloom to boom, but there is no doubt that a strong position in digital knowledge and understanding around content generation and ‘how to code’ is as important as the massive infrastructure issues facing the telecoms sector to deliver economically viable broadband to everyone in the nation. And what is the ‘second public service’ provider to consist of? All this and more will be debated over the coming months. I felt the Creative Britain report was about looking backwards to how great it was being a digitally illiterate creative director in the sixties. The Digital Britain report is about looking forward to how great it should be being a digitally literate creative business in the future. I, for one, welcome it.
1 comment(s)
Cocoa is now at its highest price for 24 years and the premium brands, those that use the most ‘cocoa solid’ content, will inevitably have to pass those raw material costs on to the consumer first. This swings things favourably for Cadbury’s and Nestlé, as they tend to use less cocoa solid in mass-produced bars, so may be able to hold prices for longer. If you compare the cocoa solids content of Dairy Milk to say, a bar of Green and Black’s you can work out the relative strength of pure chocolate for yourself.
As belts tighten, even for the indulgent, can purity at a price overcome the celebration of a joyful moment expressed in Dairy Milk advertising? The kerfuffle over ‘shrinking’ chocolate sizes (where’s my last rolo gone?) at countline level indicates that when the British consumer thinks about chocolate a tiny bit more than the three seconds it takes to snap up a KitKat as you head out of the tube, manufacturers have to sit up and take notice. Mind you, I liked one succinct Yahoo answer on that question “it’s not the chocolate bars getting smaller, it’s the people getting bigger.” Let’s see how consumers react as wallets get smaller.
Does today's report that Obama will be the first US president to use email mean digital is normal now? Mind you, yesterday the FBI announced an investigation into hacks who got hold of Sarah Palin's email.A whole new world of complication for authoritative and paranoid institutions opens up.One wonders if Obama's Candide-like attitude to technology will shift the attention from the real reason people take up email, Facebook, Twitter and so on - they want to communicate with each other, freely and without fear, to the miserable place of recrimination and *** covering, the downside of corporate communication management.
I recently receive hundreds of messages from around the world as I left MRM Worldwide, wishing me luck with my new venture and other kindly comments.Many of them were *not* by email on account of big brother concerns. It's a sad reflection on corporate life that individuals are subsumed to the corporate will without a second thought to the perfectly reasonable human desire to communicate with people they like.There is of course, email etiquette and certain guides to successful email life that I have promoted. Don't send email when you're a) pissed b) angry c) very angry. Do a) spell correctly b) make the message title relevant and c) consider the recipient may have two hundred unopened in an inbox.One excuse I've heard from corporate apparatchiks for not doing something they were supposed to was they were too busy dealing with hundreds of emails. Don't confuse activity with progress was my advice back. Let's hope Obama doesn't either.
First day at the new office, pop to Starbucks to write a speech. No plugs for the laptop. Grr. That’s why Starbucks is so annoying. You think you’re going to get decent coffee, but it’s a bit random. You think you can work wirelessly, but unless you have an account with T-Mobile, it’s expensive. Roll on local authority funded wireless networks, like they have in Islington. Or free wi-fi, like they have in most of the cafés in Stoke Newington and Valparaiso. Come on Starbucks. Catch up with the modern ‘knowledge-working’ habits please, and provide more than one plug for the low battery life mac users, and free wi-fi with the skinny caps. Loved the John Coltrane backgroud music though. Credit where credit's due in educating the world that A Love Supreme is not an ice cream at McDonalds.
4 comment(s)
Obama's success is being celebrated as the triumph of 'digital cleverness' over the old fashioned slagging TV strategy of the Republicans. Even I got an email from Obama. In the end though, I believe he was selling hope, and a vision for the future. Much of the corporate world sells the past, and it's tiring being a change agent (I know several) in companies that don't want to change at their heart, or just will take too long. Observing trends is one thing, adapting to them is another. And there are some deep changes brought about by the internet that I think companies must adapt to.I was interviewed by McKinsey some years ago about how the digitisation of media would affect the agency business. I was pretty clear about the opportunity and the challenge. Digitisation would eventually expose the pricing structures of media and the agency infrastructure that sat in between the advertisers and the media properties that put messages in front of consumers. Media owners seek the highest bidder for access to their distribution; brand owners seek the lowest bidder for their message distribution. Agencies are in the middle, trying to make a cut both ways. Obviously it's more complicated than that, and the creation of memorable brand imagery and content for distribution has been where agencies create value for themselves. This relied on having 'the best people' and 'top creative talent' and an industry of awards recognition emerged to build rank and competition.The world has moved on. One of the deepest and potentially destructive trends is neatly described, again, by McKinsey. The Internet and related technologies give companies radical new ways to harvest the talents of innovators working outside corporate boundaries. High tech, consumer goods, and automotive companies have to involve customers, suppliers and small specialist businesses, in the creation of new products. By distributing innovation through the value chain, companies reduce costs and get to market faster by eliminating the bottlenecks that come with total control.Agencies struggle with this concept. They want to control everything, and take credit for everything. The advertising agencies have long known that the ability to marshal the co-creation process has been a competitive advantage, and the role of orchestration creates value, as well as the control process. This meant that in awards ceremonies, the production companies get awards too. I've heard agencies from the direct marketing world tend to be less collaborative, as they don’t have the same self-confidence perhaps, or the associative glamour that shooting with Paul Thomas Anderson or Aki Kaurismaki brings in seductive conversations with Clients.The d-word tends to make all this rather confusing. Developing a programme for a brand to live successfully on the internet forces a way of working that requires a strong collaborative culture at the heart. That is hard to understand without experience. It’s not clear cut who is responsible in the development process. Ideas do, literally, come from everyone. That has to be a good thing, especially as the words on every marketeer’s lips are ‘the consumer is in control’. But it is not something that the old model of agency self-aggrandisement likes very much.
PS I watched the Obama inauguration with my children, (politely encouraged to switch over from Phineas and Ferb) rather like I had been allowed by my parents to stay up for the first moon landing when I was tiny, and was delighted to hear him speak up for the workers, rather than the greedy, and for the doers, rather than the credit bandwagon. Let's hope he continues to.
Lord Carter's interim report on Digital Britain is due out next week. I was at the briefing he gave to the Westminster forum, which made the front page of the FT at the weekend, along with a few TV luminaries. There are a few big unanswered questions. First, is it really 'universal' access? Second, if 'free to air' is no longer viable, how do you create a framework that allows quality public service broadcasting to continue that isn't singly funding the BBC? Third if there is no publicly supported creative industry, how will programmes that sit low down the commissioning table (investigative public interest programmes for example) ever see the light of day? As the government continues to bail out the banks with our money, government investment in the 'digital content' industry pales somewhat into a relatively small proportion of the £3.5bn BBC funding. By comparison, the Government injected £37bn into RBS, Lloyds TSB and HBOS in October, and pledged £450bn to guarantee banks' debt. It's now adding another tranche of money for the bankers. If we are to become a serious digital player in the world, the government needs to put its money where its mouth is.
It’s hard when presenting in Stockholm not to throw in a few one-liners about suicides or Abba. “I’m so excited to be here I nearly killed myself", “You’re a great crowd, is it a Swedish convention not to clap?” “We’ve come a long way from Waterloo to get here” and so on. So it was good to see Dave Droga speaking at the Eurobest event last week without too many localisation jokes, but with dry wit and passion about the work he’s been up to. Dave likes only to work on things he feels passionate about and make a difference. There’s a superb campaign for Obama with Sarah Silverman getting Jewish grandparents in Florida to vote for change, and the Tap campaign in New York (getting people to pay for tap water as a charitable act). Creatives do love to work on things they feel passionate about, in fact, we all do. But it does leave the industry with a big question. How do you get passion for the brand from everyone involved in developing and delivering the communication?
Developing a different approach is one way. We talked at Eurobest about how developing a more modern approach to getting attention and engagement of specific target audiences with niche work can be highly effective. To be successful in Europe, cultural insight and relevance is critical. Others showed ideas living well in several channels. Others showed work that was just ‘cool’. And that’s ok. Because if it’s cool, and consumers feel differently as a result of seeing or engaging with the message and the experience of what the brand stands for, it does rather a lot of good for the brand.
Not discussed so much, but underpinning the mood of the whole event, is the tough question about the budgets out there. Not many marketers are expecting to spend more, and are expecting robust business cases behind activity. As Shakespeare put it, ‘twas ever thus. The difference now, though, is that if we can’t put numbers in front of work, it won’t fly. But sometimes we need to understand the context of emotional decision-making and passion for brands, which don’t necessarily follow the logic of numbers. It got me thinking about what people feel strong ‘emotional connections’ with.
Let’s imagine we’re pitching for an insurer called Manchester United. The data shows us that there are 2 million homeowners in London who buy their insurance from another firm called Chelsea. The marketing task is simple. Let’s get 5% of the Chelsea policy-holders to switch to Manchester United and we'll hit our target. But for reasons that nobody can quite explain, the Chelsea loyalists ('fans' in Facebook parlance) don’t want to switch. In fact they send mailers back, deface the posters on the Cromwell Road, hack the site and stand up saying “we hate Man U” in the pub. Of course it takes time, heritage, high levels of engagement and product performance to get to the place Manchester United and Chelsea hold amongst their strongest fans. And I choose these teams as (arguably) they have a higher proportion of fair-weather fans (prospective switchers) compared to say, Liverpool, or Luton Town. Not all brands have the same investment capacity. But every brand should have something inspiring to say if you think hard enough.
www.eurobest.com
http://mingeltv.eurobest.com/videos/details/48
http://mingeltv.eurobest.com/videos/details/45
At the British Interactive Media Awards (ps got one for Intel woohoo) last night Nike and AKQA did really well – congratulations to them for an outstanding showing. I was asked by another Client at the event how helpful it is to have Nike as a brand to play with. Poke did well with Orange too, another brand that has a certain award friendliness.
Years ago I was watching a focus group through a glass wall, with the moderator showing some work we had made for a car client. (I’ll keep the names quiet to protect the innocent). Then he showed a host of competitor pieces, and everyone lit up. We thought, and post-prodded consumers came round to the idea too, I’m pleased to say, that our work was really good. Different, provocative, even. But it didn’t get a gut reaction.
Chatting to the moderator afterwards, he said, well, it’s the brand, They just see those (dull, bland, ordinary) cars, and when they see the other (cool, sporty, dynamic) cars, they, well, just light up.
I guess it’s all of our concern to create work that sets the long-term values and tonality for brands that give them privileged status with the consumer. Is it so much harder to win awards with more ‘challenged’ brands?
Alastair Duncan
Blogging for:
Member since: 03 Jun 2008
Last login: 01 Jul 2009
Total Posts: 90
