If you believe in A4A (Action for Ads) please log on to the website for Sustain. Its apparently a well-intentioned pressure group for better food and farming.
But if you were listening to Radio Five Live on Saturday morning you will have heard Sustain spokesman Richard Watts interviewed by Rachel Burdon on internet marketing of snack and confectionery products to children.
Unless I completely misunderstood what he was saying, he wants to ban ALL ADVERTISING of what he calls “junk food” just in case children might be influenced by any aspect of it
Sustain describes itself like this: “The alliance for better food and farming advocates food and agriculture policies and practices that enhance the health and welfare of people and animals, improve the working and living environment, enrich society and culture and promote equity. We represent around 100 national public interest organisations working at international, national, regional and local level”. Sounds worthy enough. But Mr Watts apparently wants to deny brand owners the right to advertise any products that Sustain doesn’t approve of. To me that smacks of fascism. I suspect that Sustain is a hostile pressure group with extreme policies – and that our industry should fight them, their views, and their attempts to persuade government and regulators to restrict freedom to advertise in all media including the internet. I could find no way to blog on their site, so – if you agree with me – I suggest you contact them as follows to find out if Richard Watts’ views represent the organisation’s official policy:Address: 94 White Lion Street, London, N1 9PFTel: 020 7837 1228Email: sustain@sustainweb.org
no comments
In this morning’s times 2 there is a review by Anjana Ahuja of a book called ‘Quirkology: The Curious Science of Everyday Lives’ by Professor Richard Wiseman. Wiseman, who is a social psychologist, writes about lonely hearts ads. His experiments, based on 25-word personal ads, show that nearly all the most successful had a 70:30 balance: 70% about me and 30% about you. More than 70% about me and I come across as self-centred. Less than 70% and I’m hiding something. And I need to devote 30% to my dream soul mate, or he/she won’t be able to identify himself/herself. I am wondering if Wiseman has unearthed a formula that might work for ALL ads.When you think about it, the pressure to get a personal ad right is extreme. We’ve spent our working lives trying to build brands, but brand ME is an altogether higher priority. Obviously I want to say enough about myself to attract interest and attention. But if I fail to give my target market enough clues to identify herself, why should she bother? Isn’t that rather the situation with all advertising? Too much manufacturer speak, too many features called out – and you end up speaking to yourself. Equally there have been legions of atmospheric and emotive ads that have failed because either the brand or the product (or both) were too recessive. Hopefully there are academics out there with the time and inclination to take, say, 20 IPA Effectiveness Award-winning campaigns and a random sample of 20 other campaigns, and see if the winners peak at 70:30. One interesting sidelight on Wiseman’s research came from his use of a separate panel of volunteers to predict which ads would pull the most responses. There was a startling gender difference. The male volunteers were extremely good at predicting which ads would pull best. The women failed completely. Wiseman’s conclusion: men want quantity, women are only interested in quality. There’s another finding that might have a wider application.
1 comment(s)
No-one in the Cafe Royal listening to Moray MacLennan's inaugural address as IPA President yesterday could have failed to be impressed with his message.Campaign today reprints the speech on pp 30 and 31. There are conflicting signals from the Titanic right now, with plenty of activity on the deck chair front. It was good to hear that the IPA’s agenda is going to be fundamental stuff about maritime safety, iceberg watch and developing new forms of transportation.Marketing, advertising and all forms of marketing communications make a vital contribution to the economy – on a macro as well as a micro basis. As Moray said yesterday: ‘we must show how creativity is inextricably linked to business success’. He leads the agency community, but he particularly deserves support from clients as well. Brands don’t just need brilliant advertising. They also need brilliant agencies. Looking around the tables at the IPA Members’ Lunch yesterday, I was very struck by the concentration of talent and experience. Agency folk may move around, but the stars display remarkable resilience and stickability. There is fantastic experience out there. They’ve helped to launch and build scores of stellar brands. And they are available to do it again. And again. If during his two years Moray can reach his other target markets - government and the public – that would be a huge achievement. But meanwhile, let’s see clients and agencies working together to promote the economic benefits of advertising.
Some mistake surely? We normally talk about being nostalgic about the past, or worried about the future. No, after attending the Adforum Worldwide Summit in Amsterdam this week I’m nostalgic about the future I had thought we were all looking forward to.I’ve been crazybusy at an international of intermediaries – or maybe a conclave of consultants. There are two Adforum Summits a year for people like me – agency search consultants from all over the world. In the spring we gather for two days somewhere in Europe, and then in the autumn for five days in New York. We meet agencies, who tell us about themselves and the future. And we hold internal workshops to consider research and reports prepared by colleagues. Since these ‘colleagues’ are effectively competitors, it is quite collegiate. Also, from time to time, scary. I may have a rail pass these days, but I have not been negative about the future for our business. I have been prepared for fast growth in digital, and lots of integration and branded content. But we are supposed to be pundits, and when the vision of the future, as presented by respected agencies and colleagues, is so far ahead of what you have been anticipating, it is really unsettling. In The Beautiful South’s album ‘Blue is the colour’ there is a number called ‘Mirror’. It’s about a prostitute’s dream for a better future. There is a haunting line in it: ‘a mirror bigger then the room it is placed in’. Just a few of the questions troubling me after Amsterdam:
A4A (Action for Ads) has to fight on many fronts. Let’s concentrate for the few minutes it will take you to read this on one of them - personal health. The main headline in The Times yesterday read: ‘HRT alert after more than 1,000 women die’. Today’s said: ‘Scientists prove that salty diet costs lives’. So that’s pretty clear then. Middle aged women should stay clear of HRT, and we should stop eating salt. Allow me to be the devil’s advocate.The Million Women Study into UK women between 50 and 64 was conducted over five years. It covered 25% of all women in that age group, and is by any standards serious research. It showed that 1,591 of the women (just less than 0.2% of the sample) died of ovarian cancer having taken HRT. 53% of the sample had at some stage been on HRT. So – worst case, and The Times didn’t give us all the co-ordinates – 0.4% of those on HRT died of ovarian cancer. One in 250. What the study (or rather the write up of the study) didn’t tell us was how many would have died of ovarian cancer without having taken HRT. The 249 who didn’t die presumably enjoyed the benefits of HRT – feeling younger, avoiding hot flushes, less chance of osteoporosis, better sex. Reasonable odds, I would have thought, given all the other things they might have died of, and inevitably will die of. Now let’s look at salt. This study this time is from the US, conducted by a team at Harvard Medical School. Unlike the Million Women Study, which was neutral (ie without an agenda or mission), the Harvard team were charged with demonstrating that reducing salt intake reduces blood pressure, thereby also lessening the likelihood of heart attacks and strokes. The sample was only 744 30-54 year olds. The team estimated from their original trials that reducing salt intake by 25-35% would cut the likelihood of stroke deaths by 6% and heart disease by 4%. They now claim the benefits are greater – but because of incomplete follow-up, they cannot quantify it. None of which has held The Times back from dramatising the risk on their front page. This kind of alarmism scares people disproportionately. But it’s worse than that. The studies are taken over by spin doctors for pressure groups, who then interpret them in such a way that governments and regulators rush into new rules and restrictions. Marketing and advertising are curbed and curtailed. By which time the public has forgotten (or never knew) that the research that proves death from HRT, salt, Easter eggs or whatever was incomplete and inconclusive. It is a vicious circle. I implore you to question each successive frightening fact, and stand up for your individual right to make your own decisions rather than have your freedoms removed by scary (and sometimes dodgy) statistics.
I was struck by yesterday’s front page headline in Marketing: ‘Woolworths pares back spend as sales fall away’. Isn’t it supposed to work the other way? Don’t brand owners spend to increase sales? Just asking.
A month ago I called for the industry to mount a Campaign for Real Marketing to guard against the slide into mediocrity and short-termism. Last week I blogged every day in support of A4A (Action for Ads). Now it’s time to link the two causes. Will all marketing leaders out there who haven’t already done so please sign Campaign’s petition and lend their weight to the fight against the marginalisation of our freedoms by legislators, regulators and pressure groups.Six main items on the agenda:
To make Action for Ads (A4A) stick, why doesn’t the industry devise a “freedom warning” for ads in sensitive sectors, where we feel there is an ongoing threat from government, regulators and pressure groups?A4A isn’t just about the freedom of marketers and agencies to tell honest, decent and true stories about their brands – provided it is done in a responsible way. It is also about freedom from undue interference. Putting a freedom warning on the ads themselves would remind consumers how important it is to defend their right to choose the brands they want. Without ads, how can they know which car, biscuit, beer or mortgage is for them? It’s a free country.
Much of the success of UK clients is down to the advertising and marketing communications talent they can call upon to build their brands. But Action for Ads should also emphasise the role of British agencies and groups in making our industry world class.It is not all about WPP, but what an achievement by a British advertising company in employing nearly 100,000 people in 2000+ offices, and reaching £6bn in revenues, and £750m in profits. That market cap is only £8bn, given the numbers above, demonstrates just how much more potential there is in the company. The fact that less than half WPP’s revenues are now derived from traditional media activities, shows just how far the group has diversified into consulting, other marketing services and the fast growing direct and digital space. Beyond the big groups there are also a host of highly successful independent agencies of all types, and compact multi-disciplinary groups. I believe that Action for Ads shouldn’t only concentrate on defending freedoms, hugely important though that is. Our flourishing and globally respected industry deserves just as many accolades as for instance financial services, software and medical research. Yet its commercial success tends to be obscured by carping criticism of an allegedly harmful level of influence. Vance Packard’s legendary attack on advertising ‘manipulation’ The Hidden Persuaders was published 50 years ago this year. It attracted adulation from left-leaning sociologists, and ridicule from supporters of capitalism and competition. I have observed the massive contribution to prosperity and quality of life made by our industry over the intervening period It would be a tragedy, I believe, if we allow ourselves to be browbeaten into conceding even more ground by latter day Packards and Ralph Naders. Sevral of the British agencies that have done so well are now taking their CSR responsibilities seriously. But they have another responsibility: to defend their right to communicate openly with the public to promote legitimate products and services.
Britain accounts for only 4½% of world adspend. But we punch way beyond our weight, and this needs to be reflected in Action for Ads. Look at Britain’s global contribution in just two vital areas: planning and creativity. We led the world by inventing and developing strategic planning. This single breakthrough, dating from the mid-sixties, transformed advertising from propaganda to communication. Until then advertising had consisted of designing and sending selling messages on the interruption model. The consumer was just the passive recipient. Success was determined by the size of the media budget. With planning, advertising became a sophisticated marketing tool, in a world where brands became more important than the companies that make them. Strategic planning is a science. Instead of ‘the consumer’ we have segmentation and target markets. Advertisers could now outsmart the competition without having to outspend them. British planners have taken their skills around the world – and that’s something to emphasise in Action for Ads. It is also difficult to argue with our leadership in creativity. We don’t have a monopoly of talent or award-winning. But London is widely acknowledged to be one the world’s premier centres of creative excellence. Thanks to the IPA Effectiveness Awards, we have developed a tradition of combining creativity and success in the marketplace. We do great ads that work. And thanks to the primacy of the English language, countless UK-produced campaigns have achieved success on every continent. UK agencies have managed to keep up these standards despite creeping restrictions. But the moment has come to resist ever more swingeing curbs. Otherwise London will not find it easy to maintain its leadership position.
I wholeheartedly support Action for Ads. But I do have a concern that Campaign’s praiseworthy initiative won’t succeed – indeed it could be counter-productive – unless we identify spokespeople who are likeable as well as articulateLet’s be honest. One of the reasons the advertising community is on the back foot is that many of the self-appointed representatives of our industry come across badly on TV, on radio and in print. The London advertising village is self-indulgent; we all know that. What is slightly less obvious is that it suffers from an image problem. Agency people can’t understand why they and advertising itself are not more popular, like for instance stars in sport, entertainment and the media. Here are three possible reasons: First, much of our output is trivial. Punish yourself. Sit down and watch a commercial channel for three hours tonight. Will you be uplifted by glittering creativity in the breaks? Unlikely. But we do great ads as well as a lot of indifferent ones. Let’s highlight the very best. Secondly, the business is incestuous. Success inevitably means that the high flyers work 18 hour days. With the result that many adpeople only meet other adpeople. Result: no perspective, and little feel for the world outside. Like politicians, we must get out more and relate to the public whose support we need. Thirdly, we often forget to talk about the vital stuff: freedom of speech within self-regulation, the importance of competition, and the huge contribution made by marketing to success and prosperity. Then there are the employment opportunities we create directly and indirectly. And in the public sector, the amazing job done by the COI roster. In the next few days I’m going to have a go at developing some of the elements of what, I believe, is a really good story. Action for Ads needs good arguments, and only the best presenters. Let’s use two skills we are really good at: strategic planning and casting. We might even try 360° thinking and ask our friends in PR to advise us. Above all, let’s think before we speak.
3 comment(s)
According to the main headline in today’s Daily Telegraph, new research shows that 2oz of red meat a day increases the risk of breast cancer in older women. Is this the tipping point? Is this the signal for the marketing community to stand up and fight for freedoms? I’ll try and make the case.
It is apparently totally acceptable for ‘them’ (the Government, politicians generally, doctors, academics) to use the media to scare the pants off the public, or to demonise activities they enjoy. I am not talking about well attested villains like drink-driving and smoking. Of course it is right for us to be protected from dangerous and anti-social products and behaviour. But emboldened by this, the zealots are hell-bent on institutionalising the nanny state. Last week it was the Royal College of Physicians condemning adults for drinking wine at home. Allegedly that is far more dangerous than teenagers binge drinking. Dairy products, chocolate, burgers, crisps, and fizzy drinks are all ‘junk food’. Staples like bread and potatoes are under the cosh. Cheap air travel has been pilloried by the Conservatives.
Yet, marketers and agencies are ever more severely restricted in the legitimate promotion of products and services, which on any objective assessment do no real harm, in moderation at least, to consumers or the environment. Pharma companies have to do years of research and clinical testing before getting a licence to market a drug with the potential to increase the quality of life and save lives. Yet doctors, scientists and junior ministers can grab the headlines on the basis of ‘new findings’, and before you know it, there is new legislation or new rules on when, what and how products can be advertised.
We are all going to die. Doctors, ministers and legislation cannot prevent this. But all the statistics show that people live longer in prosperous countries, where they have the freedom to choose. The freedom to choose is closely associated with the freedom to market products and services, and to advertise them in a way that is honest, decent and true. It would be good if ‘they’ had to observe the same rules when they are telling us not to eat things. 2oz of red meat? Please. And good for Campaign's Action For Ads initiative. I'll be signing the petition.
“Big Ideas that Changed the World” is a new series starting tonight on Five – not a compilation of Golden Lions, much less Twenty Top Pitches.
As an agency selection consultant of nearly 20 summers, I always try to manage expectations about The Big Idea. It’s probably time to plant a stake in the ground and warn advertisers that big ideas – really big ideas – are as almost as rare as Michael Vaughan’s one day hundreds.
When Jeremy Bullmore was asked how he recognised a big idea, he famously explained: “They all start as small ideas – it takes time for an idea to grow into a big one”. As usual he was right. Sitting through hundreds of pitch presentations, it isn’t unusual to see a brilliant insight or a clever turn of phrase. But big ideas are thin on the ground. Brilliant executions though – that’s a different matter. Agencies are famously good at hiring the finest directors, the most talented photographers, selecting amazing music, and of course casting the best talent. The finished product – in whatever medium – is what makes outstanding advertising. Sometimes (and this is the heresy you may not speak) when there isn’t even a particularly spectacular idea at the heart of it. But of course in pitches you don’t usually get to execution. Nor should you. The pitch is supposed to be an audition, not a free show.
For some the defining criterion of a big idea is success in the marketplace, and the growth of effectiveness awards (spearheaded here in the UK by the IPA) has been a really positive development. But you simply can’t look at a pitch campaign, and say with confidence that it is going to work, in terms of increasing sales and share. That is going to take time to prove.
Why don't we agree that it would be great to have a big idea one day, but meanwhile weill look for ideas with potential?
I don’t know how many of you caught Lucy Kellaway’s piece in the FT on the new American business book 'Crazybusy' by psychiatrist Dr Ned Hallowell.
‘CrazyBusy’ is about the perils of Attention Deficit Disorder, and the risks we run, when we are, as Hallowell puts it: “overstretched, overbooked and about to snap”. Kellaway’s take on the book was that if you’re too busy for sex, get round it by taking your Blackberry to bed.
The Easter break is a good time to take stock – and for me a better time to make resolutions than in the aftermath of the extended Christmas/New Year holiday. I started thinking about conventional questions and predictable answers. “Are you busy?”, is up there with “How are you?”, “How was the weekend/holiday?”, and “Is everything all right with your meal?”.
“How are you?” isn’t a cue for a full medical bulletin – although I find that the older I get the more tempted I am to share a few symptoms and go for the sympathy vote. Questions about the weekend and your holiday always seem to be answered with an enthusiastic “great”. But can all weekends and holidays be that good? In restaurants I do know people who have the guts (if that’s the word) to give the waiter a truthful answer as you start masticating the first forkful of polenta, but does it make it a happier dining experience for you, and importantly your companion? And as for the “busy?” question, don’t you always hear colleagues, business friends - indeed yourself – say “Busy? We are absolutely rushed off our feet”.
When you think about it, it’s a pretty self-defeating answer. Clients, prospective clients, colleagues are not going to be encouraged. If David’s that busy they had better not make his life any worse by offering him that assignment. Family and friends are not going to react any better. They will be thinking that if Ned Hallowell isn’t available, they ought to find another psychiatrist to sort him out.
So here’s my Easter resolution: I’m not going to be CrazyBusy any more. From now on life is going to be about having plenty of empty slots in the diary, weekends off, time for golf. Thanks Lucy. Thanks Ned. No more BlackBerry under the pillow. It can sit on my bedside table beside my ‘To do’ list.
4 comment(s)
David Wethey
Blogging for:
Member since: 03 Jun 2008
Last login: 28 Jan 2009
Total Posts: 69
