Marketing Unleashed with Gary Bembridge

The Nespresso brand experience

2008-07-24T01:55:00.001-07:00

I was given a Nestle Nespresso machine by my partner and their best mate as a thank you for sorting out some travel for them. I have been hankering after one of them for a while and never quite got round to buying one, having used them in some of the hotel rooms I stay in.

Not only do I love the machine and the coffee it makes, but it is a brilliant example of how Nestle have created a whole and very involving brand experience around the machine and the (expensive) coffee pods you have to buy forever to get coffee from the machines. I think the experience they create is fantastic as it builds a whole world of experience and sense of belonging. Once you get your machine you join the Nespresso club which is in reality is a site to order the coffee pods you need to make coffee - but they have created a whole world around the machine/ coffee that makes it all feel very intimate and special.

Within the box there is a binder with all sorts of sections and beautifully prepared leaflets about the coffee, machines and special offers to attract you to register and join the site. There are beautiful display boxes for your pods to buy, special glasses and other bits and pieces. You can order or call and order 24 hours a day, again making it feel like you are important and they are always there to assist.

Then there are flagship stores in the major capitals where you are encouraged to go and visit and chat and explore. So it in an experience and brand world that covers your product experience, communication and shopping experiences. A total world to immerse in.

I thought it was very clever and very slickly executed as everything is so beautifully done. It was also interesting to me how they have made a machine that makes coffee into an experience, just as Starbucks made going into a shop an experience (though they probably have lost a bit of that).

I love my Nespresso machine and it feels special everything I make a coffee. Very clever..

(the picture above is my Krups X21 machine...)

All is not easy when it come to currying favour with the Easy Group!

2008-07-23T03:43:00.001-07:00

Saw this originally in "The Times" on 23 July. Some chaps have opened an Indian restaurant in Northampton in the UK called "EasyCurry".

Other than being a rubbish name for an Indian restaurant, the name, font and colour scheme is clearly a rip off of the Easy brand (EasyJet, etc). The owners seem upset that Easy went after them for trademark infringement.

If the owners really thought it was a good name and really thought it was distinctive then why have they made it look like the more famous brand? To get business and benefit for their start-up brand of course. At a glance it looks like the Easy brand and is misleading.

Of course they now have had a lot of publicity that no other small Indian restaurant would have got at launch. And that maybe was their main objective anyway.

But if something looks like something else it is clear the plan is to trade off the goodwill of a major brand. Something annoying many supermarkets tend to do with their private labels - the US ones being the worst of all

Getting what you want in advertising by asking for it properly...

2008-07-22T05:10:00.000-07:00

Ask Me, Ask Me, Ask Me...
Originally uploaded by D..R..

I was talking to one of my colleagues about briefing the agency, and how to get the work you really want.

It was sparked in part by a note/ thought that I had said to our agency working on some absolutely critical new copy for a brand that is now really struggling in the market place. My view to my agency partner is: "This copy has to make us all famous". That is what I am really looking for. Famous because it will dramatically change the way people inside the company (who have lost faith in the brand) think about the brand and so they get behind it again - and famous because it will get consumers to completely relook at the brand (from being old fashioned and stuffy into something innovative, relevant and exciting) and put it back on their shopping list.

It reminded me of what I had read about the much publicised Cadbury Gorilla ad (which readers of this blog will know is not one of my favourite ads). Fallon, the agency, claim the brief they got was: make me an ad that gets talked about. This lead to an ad that was very much talked about and took on a life on the net as well as on air. Her example was when working in the brewing industry where copy ahs to stand out as products are probably less differentiated, was she asked for an ad that would "win awards". This lead to a very breakthrough, very popular and award winning series of ads.

All too often when briefing creatives we give them sales and shares targets, that usually reflect business plan targets and so are not that aspirational. Creatives need to be inspired -a nd so give them an advertising objective that inspires.

But remember, you will then get that. So if don't really want to buy it, don't ask for it.

Big Brother: what can we learn?

2008-07-15T06:28:00.001-07:00

I used to be a massive fan of the TV show "Big Brother". Such a big fan that I even bought in auction items like one of the diary room chairs used in the UK season 1 and 2.

The show has been running for 8 years in most markets to falling ratings. Australia has been the first to announce that the current season will be the last. Expectations are that other markets will do the same, though as some (like the UK Channel 4) have contracts committing to a few more years.

But the format is pretty much done. The problem is that viewers and house mates know the format inside out and there is little to surprise and little to engage. The format survived by courting controversy and heavy arguments, but it backfired in the UK in one of the celebrity versions which caused a racial stir and ruined the careers of some of the celebrities.

The problem is a classic marketing and brand issue. "Big Brother" has not been evolving its product to meet changing tastes and competition. In its day it had uniqueness on its side as there was little reality TV. Viewers and house mates did not know the format and how it would unfold. The "good guys" shone out.

But the world and tastes have changed. The winning reality shows tend to be ones that pitch people with some talent against each other (such as American Idol, X-factor, Britain's Got Talent). And while laughing at no-hopers trying out, the real intrigue is seeing talent growing and emerging. In Big Brother the cast are all no-hopers and stay that way.

Of course, the whole telephone vote scandals in the UK has not helped as so many fewer people get as involved in the show as they doubt if their vote really counts. This means that people are less likely to get engaged and committed to the format.

In other markets and categories you need to keep evolving and changing. This is the mistake Big Brother has made. It all is like a case of deja-vu. Adapt or die if you want your brand to survive. And it looks like the latter.

Is Mr Mugabe a marketing whizz as well as election "master"?

2008-07-14T06:37:00.000-07:00

I came across a copy of one of Mr Mugabe's press ads for the recent "election" in Zimbabwe on a great blog I read called Brand DNA that I just had to refer to and repeat here.

Although one can argue a lot with Mr Mugabe's approach to democracy and elections, this ad shows that he does understand one of the easiest and most effective marketing and communication approaches! And that is to have an "enemy" to compare yourself against. It is an old technique that still works today, even if your enemy is your old product or an existing practice you are trying to change (like getting people to stop using soap and use your bath foam or shower gel). It works even better if your "enemy" is less likely to counter your claims of course.

Mr Mugabe uses Britain and its colonial past as the enemy in all his communication. Even though Britain has not actually been involved in the country in reality since 1980 independence.

Of course, it is not really likely that this ad really drove the "results" of the election - but even if the man does not have a grasp on the full principles of democracy, he does have some grip on marketing and communication principles?

Does it matter if David Beckham's packet was touched up?

2008-07-09T08:38:00.000-07:00

In a posting a while ago I asked if it was just me or if there were there a lot of naked and shirtless men in ads these days ... And why was that happening.

It was amusing to me then to see all the fuss in the press that the now infamous David Beckham and Armani Underwear ads are causing. Other than him setting a rather high bar for us mere male mortals to achieve on the body front (we may think we are portraying his chiselled body image as our flabby stomachs groan over the stylish waist band by buying the underwear).. But a big debate has ensued about if his packet (which also sets men a higher hurdle to aspire to) is all that it seems. Speculation has been flying around that it was augmented. And this was another example of advertisers stretching the truth., which is another favourite topic of mine..

Just when I wasn't feeling so bad and could feel relieved that it was in fact probably a matter for the advertising standards and trading standards, yet another example of brands stretching the truth and yet another example that I could quote of suspect brand morals.....an Armani spokesperson was quoted to confirm that the packet in question was airbrushed. But to make it smaller. So more a down claim than an upclaim as it were

Damn that David Beckham.

Heinz and men kissing. What did we learn?

2008-07-06T04:05:00.000-07:00

So Heinz pulled their "men kissing" TV ad in the UK for their New York Deli Mayo range after the ASA got a stream of complaints.

Again controversy meant that Heinz was all over the papers, and this little known product in their range and the brand was being talked about in all the media. It also became the most watched video clip on the Guardian newspaper website and on YouTube with have zillions of hits.

The thing with controversy is that it does help you stand out in a world of mediocre and bland ads. And I suspect often does not affect brand image if done cleverly.

The easy way for marketers to go is this route. But (of course) this is also a somewhat risky approach. But the learning is key: You need to be brave enough to create copy that will really stand out and be noticed and be remembered without resorting to just controversy.

Of course no-one can probably remember what the Heinz ad was communicating as the men kissing swamped the message. So all it did is increase awareness - and maybe that was the brief. This was a bit like the strange Cadbury Gorilla and even stranger Cadbury racing airport trucks. But don't get me started on those!

Your thoughts? Email them by clicking here or on the blog posting now!

If you have not seen the ad, watch it: click here or on the blog posting

What about the eBay Louis Vuitton fakes fine?

2008-07-03T07:06:00.001-07:00

The news that eBay has been fined by a French court around 31 million Euros for allowing fake LVMH owned Louis Vuitton items to be sold was a surprise, but an interesting development.

As a long time user (and at varying times addict) the news that there will even more pressure on eBay to stamp out fakes on the site has to be welcomed in my book. I found, for example, fairly on that buying DVDs on the site was generally a bad idea as so many I got seemed to be fakes. In fact selling DVDs on the site is now so frustrating as people seem to only bid really low, even when sellers like me have a long history of positive ratings, as they assume the item may not be the original and real thing.

The site started as a way of collectors to sell items that were hard to get and has become a place to sell everything and anything. But as a dedicated user I now only use it to buy and sell items that are hard to fake (like my large Cunard brochure collection dating back to the 1960s... Yes I am a bit odd but without eBay it would be hard to connect with other odd people with that interest!). This is the good part of eBay.

There must be easy technology that means that multiple postings of items like LV accessories and bags is flagged and dealt with for example.

From a marketing point of view, they need to be seen to take a much harder line on the fakes issue. Even if they are doing a lot it is not enough. To really build trust with users and grow by attracting the harder to convert user, they must be seen as a brand that does not facilitate fakes. Especially when the fakes industry has so many known links to other crime. Just as retailers like Primark selling inexpensive clothes must make sure their supply chain is not leading to labour abuses. It is good business and marketing sense. It is about brand integrity.

And now I am off to list some more of my non-fake Cunard brochures to top up my PayPal kitty, as I have my eye on a rather nice Louis Vuitton wash bag on eBay.......

The power of context, as illustrated by facebook

2008-06-23T04:22:00.001-07:00

I know there has been a lot of press, and some false starts, with Facebook's attempts to deliver ads based on a user's interests and what they get up to on the site (or even partner sites).

There was some learning for me recently.

First of all: something I found intrusive

I had posted a review of a hotel on one of my most favourite travel sites, Tripadvisor.com. A small pop-up appeared on the bottom right of my screen saying that a note that I had posted a review on Tripadvisor was going to be posted onto my facebook mini-feed on my profile.

I was surprised and then a bit annoyed. I guess I must have somewhere at sometime told either of the sites I used the other. But this felt a bit like snooping. And I wasn't really sure of the benefit to me.

Secondly: something I thought was pretty cool.

I had received an email from a friend on facebook asking if I knew someone that tracked and managed user generated content to be submitted onto brand or company websites. I started writing him a note back suggesting he speak to Dan Hawtrey who used to work with me who now had his own internet/ intranet content management company called Content Formula. When I typed in the name a small ad and link for the company appeared and I was asked if I wanted to include that in my reply.

I thought it was a really cool, helpful feature. It saved me looking up Dan's contact details and site and gave the person I was sending the suggestion to relevant information. I also did not find it intrusive as it was not personal but triggered by me typing within their site a brand / company name.

This was a good example of getting contextual advertising right. Information relevant when topic and need was there.

Any thoughts? Leave a comment on the blog using the comments button at the bottom of the posting or email me at gary@bembridge.co.uk

The glamour of business travel captured?

2008-06-20T13:38:00.001-07:00

I am not sure of this ad for the UK airline BMI (British Midland) will actually make anyone want to fly with them - but it does (in an exagerated way) bring home how unglamorous business travel can be. So it has a good insight.

The ad (as described on the airline website): " It is focused around a business man living the reality of the typical business traveller - visiting many countries such as Egypt, America, Jordan and Russia, staying in anonymous hotel rooms where he does not get to enjoy the local hospitality. During the scenes he is depicted on the phone to his loved ones and friends who are oblivious to his lonely existence and envious of his frequent travel to such exciting places. The end of the advert sees him relaxing, enjoying the comfort and familiar surroundings of our business cabin in the knowledge that he will soon be home."

The problem with the ad, in my view, is that is all about the insight/ attitude of business travellers and does not really sell the benefits of the product. I also suspect that branding is not that great as it can be for any airline...?

The ad can be watched on youtube at: click here or on my blog

If advertising changes attitudes, what should promotion do? A question...?

2008-06-19T07:25:00.001-07:00

I got a question that I want to see if anyone reading this can help with. The question is based on my posting on the topic of "if advertising changes attitudes, what should promotion do?": http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/GBU/~3/314431253/if-advertising-changes-attitudes-what.html

This is the query I got:

"I'd be interested to know if we hold any data on file about the impact of different types of POS instore?

If I take some of those flash arse skincare units for example that have snazzy signs and tester pots etc the presos always say 'Sales increased by 150%' etc but I'm always cynical about how much of that is due to increased range and shelf space, and control over competitor ranging vs the actual shopper saying 'You know what the presentation of this re-iterates that I can really look ten years younger'

At the opposite end of the scale, we all love ticking the box to say we've put up wobblers communication the latest brand claim but do we really know or understand if this has any INFLUENCE on the shopper's purchase apart from possible drawing their eye to that part of the shelf. Hell, a shelf tray made of lime green plastic with no message would do the same thing.

What in your experience has been the most effective form of POS as far as growing sales, which after all what we're all here to do".

Anyone with that answer?? I don't have the answer, but do have some thoughts as it also depends on the objective I guess?

If advertising changes attitudes, what should promotion do?

2008-06-18T00:33:00.001-07:00

It was not an earth shattering thought, but it was something that really resonated with me based on various discussions and strategic issues I am working on at work at present..

I was listening to one of the podcasts I enjoy on the way to work (Marketing Online Live) and one of the presenters commented:

ADVERTISING CHANGES ATTITUDES, AND PROMOTION CHANGES BEHAVIOUR

I liked this thought as it also helped to make it very simple in just a short sound byte what marketers should be thinking when working on the role of various media and activities. People when approaching "integrated communications" or "360 degree communication" are all too often focusing, in my view, on having a consistent look and feel than on the role and objective and what action should happen as a result. I am battling on, for example, the role of Point of Sale in store. Is it to just reinforce the equity, reinforce the key message in the TV ad or to drive an action (get people to come in-store, try me etc). I sometimes think I am the mad one as people look at me like I am loopy when I start off on my view.

So the comment in the podcast made me realise I was not the only on in the mad house!

What do you think? leave a comment on the blog or email me at gary@bembridge.co.uk

To visit Marketing Online Live: http://www.marketingonlinelive.com

Interrogation, a way to win in marketing??

2008-05-26T05:52:00.000-07:00

I was reminded this week by one of the people I work with about one of my little "philosophies of marketing", or "how to win” ideas. Here it is, as I think it is a good one.

There is a constant drive these days for new product. Marketing teams are under a lot of pressure to identify new products and innovation. In the cosmetics and toiletries space, the rate of failure is staggeringly high. Depending on sources it could be as much as 90 %.

New products are a lot of work, cost a lot of time and resources. They are a huge risk. Of course they are important, but are not the only thing.

Hence my challenge to all marketing teams: interrogate your formulations, you may be surprised at what you find.

Constantly sit down with people who know the formulations and how they are put together. Ask them to explain it. Ask them what story or claim you could make. Read the clinicals and other documents. Keep asking what can we say? What can this do? How is this different from our competition?

In David Ogilivy’s book "Ogilvy on Advertising" he talks about how the line in one of his famous print ads for Rolls Royce (even at 60 miles an hour all you can hear is the clock ticking) came from one of the technical manuals.

One of the most successful campaigns I have been involved in was for Johnsons Baby Oil. A product when I took it on was told as it was basically mineral oil and fragrance, and had been used for tanning which people realized it was not advised and that it would die out. We did the interrogation and our regulatory leader suggest we look at an old clinical which said that "when used on wet skin baby oil seals in more moisture than lotions and creams when used on dry skin". This somewhat clumsy sounding sentence we used, and dramatically grew the business. And I mean dramatically.

So your fairly generic product could be harboring a fortune in untapped sales and share if you interrogate it.

Do you have any other examples?

Watch an example of a Johnson's Baby Oil ad that uses this claim on YouTube: click here, or watch on the blog

Where do "old" marketers and ad people go to?

2008-05-19T04:47:00.001-07:00

The other day a few of us heading towards "a certain age" started to wonder what happens to marketing (and for that matter, advertising) people once they are no longer young. They just seem to disappear. But they must be doing something...

Maybe it is a feature of the industry I am in (multinational FMCG) where there is a relentless drive and philosophy of "up or out" (in other words if you are not a star performer, or not ambitious, then the only direction in your career path is the exit door). But the age of people at all levels in the marketing teams is incredibly young, and the level of marketing experience, therefore, also lowish.

I look around the marketing departments, and the teams on the agency, and you struggle to find anyone over the age of 40 - and even the marketing directors are more likely early 30s. With the limited number of managing director roles, that is not the destination either. So where do they all go?

Is it to another industry where age is less important? Or do they change career or go into consulting or other service industries - helping the young marketers?

Any thoughts?

What can Boris Johnson's cutting advertising budgets teach us?

2008-05-15T05:19:00.001-07:00

I have just been reading the latest copy of "Marketing Week" (May 15 2008) in the UK. There was something in there that was very topical and relevant that struck me this week, especially as we are doing our latest 2008 and 2009 sales and budget updates....

There is both an Editor Comment ("Mayor Boris gives marcoms the boot") and an article ("An uncomfortable silence") about how the newly elected London Mayor, Boris Johnson, has just slashed the advertising budget by up to £20 million that the previous mayor had to fund some of the electoral promises (more community police, transport police). The funds had been used to promote campaigns around safety, teen pregnancy, life style etc.

It reminds me so much of the process that we see time and time again. When there is pressure on the sales numbers, or more profit or funds are need, the first and almost exclusive port of call are advertising and promotion budgets. This is in part because they are usually large, easy to access and cancel and then also because in the short term it can feel painless (with small to no short term effects on sales or share often).

As many studies show, and the point in the articles in Marketing Week is making, is that in the short term there will probably be little effect - and if anything maybe Londoners will feel this is a good redistribution of money. But is it? Over time what effect will it have?

As we see with brands, cutting support and communication over time weakens you. It leaves you more vulnerable, and less strong.

I think that cutting support budgets is far too easy. It means you don't have to tackle the harder issues like organization structure or other cost areas. Is it the choice of those who lack strong stomachs. It is the choice of "brand caretakers" not "brand builders"....

What are these 2 most important and most forgotten words in marketingand advertising?

2008-04-29T03:00:00.001-07:00

Only Originally uploaded by net_efekt

So just what are these 2 most important and most forgotten words in marketing and advertising?

I cannot recall who taught me the importance of these words, but it was very early in my marketing career. I do believe that they have been very helpful, if not key to my successes - and also when I look at things they did not work so well it was usually because I had not used them.

The words are:
- ONLY
- UNLIKE

At least one, if not both should always be associated with your brand positioning and copy strategies. I try and always insist they are in any of these I see.

They both force you to think and clearly identify what makes you UNIQUE, DIFFERENTIATED or DISTINCTIVE from your competitive set. They are what you want your target to be persuade by.

If you can't complete a sentence for your brand with either or both those words in right now, you need to ask if you are just a me-too.

I tend to try and use the ONLY word in the benefit and the UNLIKE in the reason to believe as it also helps to identify who is the enemy/ competition / source of business.

Try it right now:

ONLY (my brand).........

Is it just me, or are there more naked men in ads these days?

2008-04-25T07:13:00.000-07:00

Why have naked men become such a big feature in advertising in the last few years?

I am not sure if there is a good communication based set of reasons, such as the ability of naked men to stop, grab attention and draw viewers in and so lead to more attention and finally get better ad recall. What if the novelty of seeing naked male flesh starts to wear off?

Are naked men becoming a bit like dogs and babies which over time has been proven to increase the likeability, enjoyment and recall of adverts (I have to admit to once having been involved in a TV that tested well - but we found that the whole driver of all of that was the opening shot of a great looking dog running along a beach....).

Or, is it more of a deep cultural something or other? Letting women experience the titillation that historically was limited to sexy women in ads for men.

Or is it that one ad in particular stood out for me, and then a lot like when you are thinking of buying a certain type of car you suddenly keep seeing them...

Or something else? But it really does seem that naked and scantily dressed men are becoming a bigger part in the creative executions. (And it does, of course, raise the bar for us men as the men are all rather buff, toned and generally in pretty good overall shape).

Here are some ads that started me off on asking myself the question about why there were so many naked men, and what role they really play in the idea.

The ad that started me off was the VISA ad of the poor groom running naked through the countryside with just a visa card. In addition to being somewhat envious of his pert backside, the image of a naked man running through the countryside undoubtedly had the stopping power and pulls you to find out what is going on. Here the naked man device works as the stag night prank is understood at the end which explains why he was naked - but also it makes the product as hero as all he had was the card and it saves the day.

You can see the long version of the ad on YouTube by clicking here
Or watch in the blog posting below.

There is also an ad for Aero that uses a muscular American soap star called Jason Lewis, more targeted at women, talking about the Aero bubbles. The idea is the women don't get the message about the product because they are distracted by the man. So there is an attempt make the semi-naked man part of an idea. But it is probably a bit clumsy and obvious. So unless shirtless men appeals to you don't get into ad and the message.

Watch that on YouTube by clicking here
Or in the blog posting below

I do, however, see the naked men in the ads for D&G 2007/2008 Winter Season as more just gratuitous placing of naked men to stop women. Or is there a bigger creative idea here (women dominating men?)

I guess one question to ask is: do men (straight men anyway) find naked men in ads engaging or they switch off? I suspect it is around the role and the idea. I assume the VISA ad is persuasive to men.

There is one manufacturer (JBS underwear) uses the idea that men do not want to see naked men or men in underwear (and so positioning versus Calvin Klein etc) and made the ad below. Interestingly it probably is more repelling to men than engaging!

Note. The ad shows a woman's naked boobs so if you don't want to see that, then don't watch the ad! Click here to see the ad on YouTube
Or watch in the blog posting

Spoof ads, what can we learn from Durex Ultra Mega Thin condoms?

2008-04-22T10:27:00.000-07:00

Readers of this blog will know that I am a big fan of spoof commercials and have written about them a few times. While I enjoy the ones from comedy shows, I find the “user generated” ones even more interesting and think they can teach us even more than reviewing real commercials much of the time.

Knowing my interest, a friend sent me an “advert” for Durex condoms. It was clear looking at the email string that this “campaign” had taken on a classic viral path, and had been forwarded on and on by friend to friend.

What was interesting about the advert is that it clearly is not from Durex and is a spoof or “user generated ad”. It is also quite brilliant, and like so many spoofs it can teach us marketers a lot.

You can watch the ad on youtube by clicking here or below. The ad is not rude as such as so (unless you are of a very sensitive disposition) you can watch it safely.

So what struck me about this Durex clip that I think we can learn as marketers?

Branding
The branding of Durex Ultra Mega Thin comes through loud and clear. Why is this?

The best way of ensuring strong branding is not by shouting the brand name and lots of big pack shots (in this spoof you do not even see a pack). The way you get good branding is when viewers can only tell the story of the ad by including the brand and product.

Think about how you would explain the ad to someone. You need to include both Durex and the Ultra Mega Thin variant to tell the story of the ad what is strong here is that it gets both the brand and the specific product across. In a lot of test results I have seen from major brands is that often they get the brand but not the specific product.

Communication
Very clear! The message that Durex Ultra Mega Thin gives you more felling than other condoms is completely clear. Key is there was only 1 message. It also shows the power of demos. And that representative, dramatic and engaging demos can be more clear and memorable than actual demos

Persuasion
If you are looking for sensitivity you'd head to Durex! This spoof is more persuasive than any real Durex as I have ever seen!

What do you think?

Oh surprise, content is king not channel...

2008-04-17T00:10:00.000-07:00

An article in "The Guardian" on 15 April called "survey shows darker picture for the TV channel" caught my eye. Although the story, for me, stated the obvious - it did make we wonder if others saw the world differently.

The article by Katie Allen starts: "Television remains people's favorite mass communication format but viewers are more loyal to a program than a channel, according to a survey of TV viewing around the world" (The survey was done by Accenture among 7000 people).

Isn't this obvious? Content is always the king. That is what I have always thought. In fact, during the dotcom boom and bust days this was a hot issue and topic. The point being that the survivors would be and were not the ones with clever technology and functions - but the ones with great content (where content may be enabled and realized due to technology like the Amazon "you may also like" content feature). Boo.com, which blew some crazy amount of money ($100 million) being one of the most dramatic examples.

But I have always believed in any interface with consumers that content is the king. Even a presentation that is dry but has relevant and great content will beat the no content showy one.

I guess though that the rapid expansion of the multi-channel mass media has possibly made this more obvious. Any user of Sky Plus/ Tivo knows it is all about capturing the content you want to consume. Not about the channel.

The massive success of the BBC iPlayer that allows people to catch up online with shows they missed in the last week also shows how it is all about content. The study suggests that in the US 46 percent of 18-24 watched a show on something other than a traditional TV.

Content has to be king, and getting the best content has to be the goal. Be it if you are a TV station owner or a brand marketer talking in advertising, PR, booklets and on your website. It is not about how technological advanced your site is, but what the content is.

What can we learn from fashion brands?

2008-04-09T08:34:00.001-07:00

One of the most interesting things that Mark Tungate, author of the book "Fashion Brands: Branding Style from Armani to Zara" told me was that fashion brand owners are incredibly conservative when it comes to marketing.

This thought seemed almost ridiculous! As surely these were the cutting edge, way out and freaky artists who set trends and change the way we look. He did point out that virtually every major label and name is actually owned by a massive corporation, and most of their profits come from licensing the brand names for more accessible items like sunglasses, fragrances and cosmetics. I am not sure if it is fact or some fiction I heard but somewhere I seem to recall being told that around 60% of Chanel's profits came from things other than fashion.

But to do this, it does still mean that fashion brands have to have a strong name, a strong image and a clear differentiation. So with something so lucrative and powerful that can generate large revenues. This really got me thinking even more about what we can learn from the world of Fashion Brands.

The book by Mark Tungate was a great read and I found his insight into the world of fashion exciting and thought provoking. The more I thought about it, I found I personally took 8 big ideas inspired by the book and things it made me think about and explore:

(1) VISIONARIES CREATE BRANDS, AND VISIONARIES SUSTAIN THEM

(2) IMPORTANCE OF A BRAND NARRATIVE

(3) IMPORTANCE OF DISTINCTIVE BRAND CODES AND BEING RECOGNIZED AT A GLANCE

(4) PRODUCT AS THE HERO, BEING SEEN IN THE RIGHT CONTEXT

(5) KEY ROLE OF THE STORE IN CREATING THE THEATRE OF THE BRAND

(6) IMPORTANCE OF SUPPLY CHAIN AND GETTING THE RIGHT PRODUCTS IN THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME. ALWAYS

(7) CASCADING TECHNOLOGY – ENSURING THAT YOU ARE ON TREND

(8) IMPORTANCE OF "BUZZ" AND PR. OFTEN MORE POWERFUL THAN TRADITIONAL MEDIA ROUTES AS CONNECTS WITH VERY SPECIFIC TARGETS

Creativity in Advertising: copy of my slides and speaker notes

2008-04-07T07:37:00.001-07:00

I was due to talk on 27 March at the "Creativity in Advertising 2008" conference in London. Unfortunately, I had to pull out as I had a business review that I could not say no to.

I had prepared the speech and slides on the "5 Things I wish I had known about Advertising 10 years ago". And so this was included in the handouts to delegates.

You can download a PDF with the slides and speaker notes if you would like to find out more about the 5 things. Right click here and save to your desktop. For copies of other talks, on the navigation on the left hand side of the blog you will see a section listing the talks.

The 5 things are:

- YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE
- BRIEFS NOT BOXERS
- YOUR WIFE IS NOT AN IDIOT
- NOT JUST THE CATEGORY BEST
- NO VISIBLE PENALTY FOR MISSES

What do you think? leave a comment on the blog!

How far will creatives go to avoid your briefs?

2008-02-26T13:20:00.000-08:00

In a recent posting I argued that as clients we get the advertising that we deserve. And that when we point a finger at the agency we are probably pointing at least 3 at ourselves.

One of the points I made is that unless you are a client that gives clear and very tight briefs (with no room for ambiguity or to move), and then buys work that is dramatic and bold, you are unlikely to have the best people working on your business and get the best work.

I was, therefore, amused by a "best of the blogs" section in the UK Campaign magazine called "playing to lose" from the scampblog

The posting talks about the lengths that creatives will go to in order to avoid working on rubbish briefs for clients who will only buy average and safe work.

The point made, which I thought was absolutely key, is that it is too risky for a creative team to work on bad briefs for clients who will only ever buy so-so work. It may kill their career as their show reel will be terrible. A bit like marketers only ever working on and launching products that they know will fail - it is a career suicide.

I loved the anecdote where they spoke about creatives trying at avoid P&G Oil of Olay by writing ad about a woman who is dead but no-one realises as her friends keep applying the product. Inspired by the Weekend at Bernies film.

The point of the posting: creatives are not wanting to play to lose. Give them a really tight brief where the only way out is to be creative - and then have the guts to be bold.

Is detail important in the big picture in ads?

2008-02-23T02:01:00.000-08:00

I am not very good at detail. I tend to thrive on the big picture. The idea.

Therefore, for example, when it comes to viewing the first edit of a new TV ad (which I was doing yesterday) I found myself wondering about if I should care and focus more on details. Everyone else seems almost obsessed about them.

Let me explain. This week the agency showed us the first edit of the ad, which I really liked. It had delivered the storyboard, and importantly the director had (as he always should) added more depth and detail.

For me that was pretty much it. I liked the original script as it delivered the brief and has a big creative idea. I loved the edit. For me that was about it. I knew the creative team and director would (as professionals) keep working and fine tuning. My only point is that audio-visual synch for me would and always is absolute key, especially on the pack shot and name of the brand/ product but all the action. I said that in the next/ final edit with all the voiceover and music added that they needed to double check that.

But then I found that brand teams and our country partners started to get into details. Details after details. Almost shot by shot discussing all sorts of detail in each shot.

Should I be doing that more when it come to advertising especially? I worry that the consumer will not notice, or care, and it will not sell any more product. It can end up in everyone getting caught up in lots of discussions, even aggravation and cost. It can also mean that as much time gets spent on optimising the last few percentage points of an ad. I tend to see it as time wasting.

Or is detail everything?Your thoughts?

Why always doing the right thing is not being chicken!

2008-02-18T13:38:00.000-08:00

I am very much in the camp that believes that doing the right thing will always mean that you win in the end. Even when the short term road looks harder going as a result.

It is easy to get distracted and to believe that because others are doing something that it must be ok to do it that way as well. I think as marketers we should have the courage and vision to do the right and best thing- always. And, let's face it, it is still better to fail knowing you have the moral high-ground, than succeed knowing you have not done the right thing.

There are so many examples in recent years and even months that drive this home for me, a few include:

British Airways and Virgin Atlantic colluding on "fuel surcharges"
This has lead to some high profile job losses within BA, massive fines and now they have to refund millions to travellers who flew between 2004 and 2006. The travellers can soon register for a refund at http://www.virginbapassengerrefund.com/. In fact having done about 20 - 30 flights at least that could mean a refund of up to a staggering £400 to £600 for my flights alone. There is also, of course, the likely impact on their brands and loyalty which may make the penalties look small. The potential loss to their brand standing and loyalty may be greater now with new "open skies" policy meaning that BA and Virgin will no longer be proetcetd as the only UK based airlines allowed to fly in and out of Heathrow.

Chickens, Chinese made toys and cheap fashion...
The major grocery chains in the UK, obsessed at fuelling a consumer predilection for lower and lower prices keep squeezing suppliers. This has led to less and less humane and terrible conditions for raising chickens, something celebrity chefs are now trying to attack and expose in high profile TV shows.

At the same time we saw that the obsession with cheaper and cheaper toys not only led to terrible conditions for workers, but also corners being cut on safety. This meant that we saw that paint with lead was used, leading to the huge recall of toys by Fischer Price.

As consumers ourselves we also need to start doing the right thing, and accepting higher prices when there is clear evidence of better and more appropriate conditions (from everything to how chickens are raised through to how much workers and paid and how they are treated to make those £10 and less jeans).

These wrong and terrible consequences will keep happening until we all accept the importance of doing the right thing, both as marketers (ensuring our entire supply chain has the moral and still efficient high ground) and as consumers. We need to accept that there is a huge cost of cheaper and cheaper products. Turning a blind eye to this potential cost in quality, safety and suffering is not an option.

What do you think? Leave a comment below in the blog or email me!

Is YouTube making people partners good for marketers?

2008-02-15T13:06:00.000-08:00

I was pleased with the recent move by YouTube, owned by Google, to offer a financial incentive to ordinary people who have been successfully making and loading content on the hugely successful site. It is, after all content that is always "king".

If there was not content on the site that attracted people there, then there would be no YouTube at all.

As someone that has (as of writing this) posted 140 video clips that I have made and that have been viewed 884200 times (!), it was also an important incentive. I also think it will help to start to affect the content on the site.

YouTube are only making people partners to share in ad revenue served up on the page with the video if the content is;

- original content made by the partner. So no copyright stealing

- has a proven track record of their content attracting viewers in large numbers

I know that for me this is never going to make me rich, but like the small revenue I make from Google Adsense ads served up on my sites and blogs, it does provide an incentive to think even more about the content I make. Admittedly my videos of hotel rooms and attractions I make are somewhat cheesy - but I know people find them helpful.

I visit YouTube to check out videos of hotels I am considering. And if I want to keep people engaged enough to watch the full clip before the ad is served up at the end - I will think just that bit harder about it when making them.

Consumer generated content online is becoming an important destination online, and responsible for a lot of traffic - which will only grow. It can provide excellent space and environments for us marketers to deliver content relevant brand messages (so , for example, the hotel and other tourist services delivering ads on the page where someone is watching my clip of that very hotel is likely to get a response as whoever is watching it is in high interest mode).

But as marketers we want to know the context and content is quality and appropriate. This move by YouTube may be one way of helping to ensure that.

By the way, visit my YouTube channel and watch my videos - and remember the ads!