Barraclough on marketing and creativity

Y&R Buenos Aires has “gone rogue”  and produced a piece of propaganda on behalf of the Argentine Government featuring a hockey player training on the Falkland Islands with the tag “To compete on English soil we train on Argentinian soil”.

It’s understandably upset a lot of people in the UK and despite requests from Y&R New York and the British Government, the Argentine Government has refused to pull it.

Both Sir Martin Sorrell and Y&R New York have apologised. Their man in Buenos Aires has said the ad belongs to the Argentine Government and was never meant for an audience outside his country.

Overlooking the naivety of the latter’s position, the episode raises interesting questions about the credibility of establishing and policing of universal ethical values within a global organisation. Especially one whose trade is communications. The problem being that there is no international consensus on geopolitics.

In the case of Y&R Buenos Aires, the brief they received was wholly consistent with mainstream Argentine thinking. I guess from their perspective, they have done nothing wrong (that is a jurisprudential statement not a moral one). From our perspective, it was a crass and insensitive act. Should they have refused the brief for fear of upsetting British sensibilities? How would that have played in Argentina and with their domestic clients? How would it have played if New York or London had been seen to ban it?

Of course, it would have been better if the advert had never been produced. But that would effectively mean WPP refusing to work for that particular government. The group cannot realistically issue a diktat banning WPP companies from working for ANY government, so will they now have to pick and choose which governments and which briefs are acceptable? Rather them than me.

It may also find itself in the unenviable position of having to decide which cultures and minorities can and cannot afford to be offended. I believe there is a WPP office in Damascus. And one in Tel Aviv. Within what parameters can they operate? Does London monitor their output for fear of offending regional sensitivities?

In the Falklands case it was British sensitivities that were offended and WPP has been quick to act. But now they have set a high standard and could face a backlash if they are not seen to be as protective of others’.

I’d imagine there will now be a renewed internal focus on their corporate ethical values, but getting international agreement on moral, social and political norms has proved beyond the capabilities of greater minds than mine. I do not envy Sir Martin the task.

The news this week that Whitewater, the specialist charity agency, is going into liquidation is good news for no-one. The industry needs all its agencies to thrive.

It is VERY hard to run and manage and agency profitably these days. That applies to big and small. Whitewater fished in a single pool – charities – which made it vulnerable to a downturn in the sector. And if you are operating with a long lease and a number of senior staff on commensurate benefits, it can be very hard to reduce your cost base quickly enough once income falls (I’ve no idea if that was the case with Whitewater).

A single sector focus delivers expertise but I’ve never been convinced that it is healthy. Or that it actually delivers the best results. Charity clients can benefit from learnings gained on commercial brands as B2B clients can learn from consumer brands (an exception to this is probably pharmaceuticals with its specific technical demands and regulations).

I’ve always thought expertise in a discipline makes sense, be it customer acquisition or retention, direct marketing, PR, brand advertising as these are requirements demanded by all types of clients. I can understand why charity clients are seduced by a proposition of “we only do charities” but then they are more likely to get a formulaic ‘charity’ answer. That may well be what they’re after, but these days the old formula and traditional media don’t work as they did.

Furthermore, if you are a smaller charity client amongst some big ones you are unlikely to get the service or attention of those bigger names. On the other hand, if you are a small charity at an agency that perhaps has only one other charity client, you are more likely to receive disproportionately good service, if nothing else than for the creative opportunities you provide.

In the meantime, I send my best wishes to the staff and founders of Whitewater and hope they all find suitable employment very soon.

Brand Republic reports “Tesco is to overhaul its Clubcard scheme with the launch of a ‘Love loyals’ programme designed to reward its best customers and the roll-out of a last-minute deals service.”

The rewards will involve “the late-availability and limited-stock offers across categories including holidays, ticketing and clothing.”

This is pretty much what Nectar did with its popular “Treats” campaign about 5 years ago. Nectar offered its best collectors a host of similarly exclusive and ‘hard to get’ rewards.

But go to Nectar.com today and you won’t find anything on “treats” per se…. the idea has been and gone….and I fear Tesco may find the initiative quite hard to deliver on and sustain.

For starters these ‘exclusive deals’ are a nightmare to source….almost by definition they are subject to limited availability which breeds disappointment and cynicism. Also, by definition, their appeal is limited. Not everyone wants London theatre tickets or paintballing vouchers.

What tends to happen is that the offers start off very strongly but then repetition and lack of compelling alternatives take over. And they cost a lot – in time and money -  to source, monitor and deliver. Offering a range of latest exclusive offers on a mass scale is a big, expensive operation.

The critical question, though, is whether it addresses Tesco’s issue. Compared to the size of the Clubcard database, this promotion will have limited appeal. Tesco emphasises it is for their more loyal customers only.

But even within that group there will be many, possibly the majority, who are not turned on by the prospect of collecting for a stadium tour or a ticket to Jersey Boys. Or even a limited edition T-shirt. All they want is money off their shopping. That’s why they joined Clubcard in the first place.

Don’t get me wrong, it will give Clubcard a filip in the short term, but as a long term strategy to re-invigorate the Clubcard proposition, I’m not so sure.

George Smith was the man who single-handedly shook up a worthy but dull industry, then obsessed with science, analysis and technique, and proved that imaginative creativity plays just as critical a role as, say, data or print.

George set up Smith Bundy, the one direct marketing agency in London in the 1980s that was known for left field creative thinking, in a market where ‘golden formulae’ ruled. What clients got was usually brilliant and occasionally barmy, but whatever it was, it would always make them think.

And George was born to challenge convention. He was in the fortunate position of being far brighter than almost anyone else he met. So he could see through the pomposity of those who lived by theory without ever understanding the practice. He would stun professional theoreticians by pointing out, with devastating wit and accuracy,  that their new emperor actually had no clothes. Inevitably, he would be right.

George was more than catalyst for change in our exciting new industry. He was an inspiration and mentor to many who owe him so much. To myself, to Terry Hunt, Ken Burnett, Jon Allen, Carol Trickey, Jeremy Shaw, Nigel Swabey, Elly Woolston, Peter Minta and many, many others, all of whom will be mourning the loss of a dear friend and an engaging and very funny companion.

However, George is not the sort of man who would want to rest in peace. I would imagine that right now he is questioning God as to the hierarchy in heaven and challenging the dress code at the pearly gates.

But today, all our thoughts must be with the wonderful Stella and his family. For they have lost George, the devoted husband and loving father. We will all miss him so much.

Derek Holder did more than educate a generation of marketers in direct and digital marketing. He was a major part of a movement that professionalised our industry. He helped turn a rag-bag collection of entrepreneurs, chancers, writers, media owners and pointy-head data specialists into a professional group of marketers who were respected for the science and discipline they brought to bear to an often flaky industry.

You can see his influence today every time a wide-eyed marketer trumpets the success of a campaign that has only been measured in terms of  ‘likes’ or ‘views’. Where is the ROI? What did you test? What are the lessons? What about the control? Who exactly were you targeting? Did you reach them? Questions more relevant today in the rush to tweet than even they were in the 1990s.

He, probably more than anyone, forced people like me to question what I did and PROVE that what I did worked. And worked better than what had gone before. And in doing so he framed the arguments by which direct marketing became the lead discipline for many major brands. The car companies, the banks and building societies, the insurers, the aggregators, the online retailers and even the charities owe him a huge debt. One which, thanks to Derek’s genuine humility, they will probably not be aware of.

As head of the Institute of Direct and Digital Marketing he inspired a generation of clients and agency principals to rigorously analyse what they did. But despite his championing of intellectual discipline, he was warm and delightful company. And very generous. He was very supportive of us in the early days of BHWG and because we believed in what he was trying to achieve, we would do anything to help him make the IDM an outstanding success. That was the loyalty he inspired.

The IDM is his epitaph. But I also remember a lovely, kind man, who was always ready for a good lunch and hours of fascinating debate, chat and gossip. I am so sad he is no longer with us. I will miss him.

A couple of things have happened recently that have put brands on Twitter under the spotlight.

Firstly there was the Snickers campaign featuring ‘out of character’ tweets from Rio Ferdinand, Katie Price and Ian Botham which led to the denouement of  “You’re not you when you’re hungry” with a link to Snickers. The scorn heeped upon the celebs from the Twitterati was vicious along the lines of “Do you really need the money that badly?” and “I’m not on here to be advertised at”.

Mc Donald’s was another brand to be accused of badly misjuging the medium. They initiated a #McDStories campaign where they encouraged customers to tell their favourite story about McDonald’s.  Of course what they got they back was a lot of abuse and stories about hygiene standards, poor meals and bad experiences. McDonald’s pulled the campaign within an hour.

And if that wasn’t enough, RIM have been slated for their admittedly rather childish team of cartoon Bold superheros…when RIM asked Blackberry users to tweet their new year resolutions for the #Bebold characters the twiterrati replied with derision. When contrasted against the cool of Apple…it gets worse.

Clearly these brands got it wrong. But does it matter? Marketing commentators, journos and brand experts get terribly excited over a “Twitter storm” but do people in the real world?

The Twittersphere does descend into puerile abuse very quickly, whatever the topic (as do comments on youtube). It makes you wonder how seriously people take it. And the muck-raking rumour-spreading (Gary Speed) does nothing for Twitter’s credibility.

I can’t imagine in the great scheme of things McDonald’s is that bothered. It knows that there is a considerable and active anti-McDonald’s constituency. The Snickers campaign simply wasn’t very good. The tweets were clearly written “by a marketing person”. But the copywriting was clunky and too corporate. The same with RIM, a misjudged campaign in any medium.

The danger is brands will be scared off by all this adverse reaction. But they shouldn’t be. It’s the same as anything else. Do your customer research and proposition development properly and you won’t cock up. Try and understand the dynamic and don’t be naive. There will always be people who don’t like your brand and very many more who don’t give a toss. Accept that and you will be fine.

I would suggest the marketing backlashes created a lot of hot air amongst a group of people easily ‘shocked’. And before you know it they will be onto the next “OMG have u seen????”. If I were a brand I would not get too concerned about adverse comment on Twitter. Long term, I doubt it has much impact and at least you’re being talked about. But then again, I would not put all my marketing eggs into the Twitter basket. It is one social media tool with as much chaff as wheat.

The joy of Twitter or Facebook is that various campaigns seem to catch the mood. From getting Rage Against the Machine to the Xmas No.1 spot to helping Liverpool FC change their tack on the Luis Suarez affair.

Mumsnet is notoriously powerful in its pursuit of certain causes (such as the sexualisation of children) whilst other consumer issues have caused brands to rethink or even abandon certain initiatives. Read More »

For many years Tesco Clubcard has been the gold standard for database driven marketing. But in the wake of “disappointing Christmas sales” and a subsequent tumble in share price, where does it leave the award-winning programme?

Tesco themselves have partly blamed “The Big Price Drop” campaign. It didn’t deliver sufficient volume to counter the fall in margin. What’s more a significant cut in Clubcard points was used to help finance the promotion. At the time a Tesco spokesman said “ Our customers have said what really matters to them at the moment, is the price at the till.”

This was a taking a gamble on currencies. Robbing Clubcard points to pay with pennies in the pocket. Might this lead, as some  analysts (such as Richard Perks at Mintel) recommend, to Tesco dropping Clubcard completely and replacing it with lower prices? I doubt it, especially as Tesco customers did not respond to lower prices in big enough numbers. Is this because they were accustomed to Clubcard points as their reward currency?

The strength of Clubcard is the data it delivers and the ability to target promotions effectively. The weakness of any loyalty scheme is that it doesn’t appeal to non-collectors. Offering double Clubcard points will do nothing for customers who don’t collect them. It is a loyalty tool, not an acquisition one. What it is very good at is helping you retain and grow those customers who collect and swipe their cards, even though it costs a lot to run.

Clubcard is just one weapon in Tesco’s marketing armoury. But I sense that somewhere in Tesco HQ someone will be looking very closely at its future. It is hugely popular with customers and it gives the brand real leverage over individual customers, so it surely must and will survive! But for all the millions of customers who actively collect Clubcard points, there are millions more who don’t. And somehow, Tesco needs to find ways to attract them.

Congratulations to VCCP for picking up the £32m Saga account (Brand Republic 5th Jan).  The brief is to re-invigorate the brand through a campaign that will “celebrate the freedom and possibilities that come with entering retirement.” Well I’m not sure if being 50+ means that you are “entering retirement”. I’m not.

Anyone who knows anything about marketing to ‘older people’ knows the “over 50s” are not one group but are at least three very different ones. Probably more. Most people of my age have far more in common with people in their forties than those 65+. And those “entering retirement” in their 60s are very different to those in their late 70s.

Tim Pethick, the client, adds: “Being older in Britain today is more about being healthy, wealthy and wise. Today’s over 50s are savvy, have a certain attitude and joie de vivre that may not have applied to their parents to such an extent in previous generations.”

That is all true, but Tim should also add that they are much more independent and free thinking, liberated from the financial, social and educational constraints their parents grew up with. They are much less likely to conform, which may spell trouble for a brand wanting to group them together.

More than ever, just because you are “over 50″ doesn’t mean that you all share interests or attitudes. In many ways is it as absurd as suggesting  that 20 year olds share similar tastes, views and aspirations. Some are rich, some poor, some are generous, others mean, some courageous and extrovert, others timid and quiet. Some are competitive with ambitious aspirations, others just want a quiet life.

In one respect Saga is right. Older markets today are not the same as they were, but that does not mean they are homogenous. Above all, many do not want age to be their identifier. I would rather brands approached me as a cyclist, copywriter, long-suffering dad, Chelsea supporter, Cure fan, foodie etc than as an ‘over 50′.  It’s not how I see myself. It may work for a few products where age is directly relevant (e.g. motor insurance), but as a generic lifestyle proposition? I do hope not.

Age Concern’s disastrous Heyday venture (an ill-advised portal for ‘products and services for over 50s’ that cost them £22m) demonstrated the dangers of getting this thinking wrong. There may be a gap in the market for an over-arching brand for the “over 50s”, but that doesn’t mean there is market in the gap.

It’s a very tough brief and I sincerely wish Saga and VCCP every success. At least they are making an effort to address a ridiculously neglected (and affluent) demographic. And they know their customers well enough not to do it in a patronising manner. For their sakes, I hope it works. But it ain’t gonna easy.

Iggy Pop is being dropped from the Swiftcover TV ads. Why’s that then? Is it a classic case of the marketing team getting bored with an idea long before the public has? Has Iggy served his purpose of getting Swiftcover noticed after those clucking awful chicken ads?

If Iggy was right for the brand a couple of years ago, why is he not now? Do Swiftcover not, at the very least, have a creative property that distinguishes them from the competition? And a rather more dynamic one than, say, Direct Line’s red phone?

I was never sure about Iggy from day one. I wasn’t sure who would relate to him as a brand ambassador. But he clearly had an impact and injected life into a low interest category grudge purchase.

We can only surmise that Swiftcover feel the story needs to be move on and that Iggy is not the man to do it. Perhaps he’s not sympathetic enough? Perhaps he’s too associated with speed not service? Perhaps he’s got no credibility for home insurance?

Or perhaps he simply does not want to be the face of Swiftcover any more? Celebs do give up sometimes. I recall that More Than’s creative question over whether to keep ‘Lucky’ the dog for a new campaign was answered by Lucky dying.

General insurance is a highly competitive business. It is a vastly expensive exercise to recruit new customers the whole time to counter churn. To succeed, marketers have to be a lot better at retaining business. It’s not as sexy as producing bright new TV campaigns but it’s a lot cheaper.

To do that you need to talk in a different tone of voice. After all, you are talking to people you should know relative well as opposed to frantically trying to attract those you don’t. Maybe Iggy doesn’t do that? Great for acquisition, less so for retention. This is where Direct Line scores….the same creative icon throughout the customer journey.

If Swiftcover have developed a concept that covers both then they are truly in business. Good luck.