Archive

Author Archive

Guilty pleasures

October 9, 2018 Leave a comment

Most people have enthusiastically confessed to a musical guilty pleasure, but which ads do you have a sneaky affection for?

I’m enjoying a couple of campaigns at the moment, one of which is the new B&Q campaign by WCRS. I can imagine these spots irritate the pants off some people but I like them; they’re nicely directed and edited, and they ring true, which always helps.

The pink dressing gown is a lovely touch

I’m also a fan of the McDonald’s Value Menu ads. The latest spot is one of my favourites:

Writing these visual gags isn’t easy, because even the most experienced creative can’t  be 100% certain that the laugh they had in their head when they came up with the original thought will successfully translate to the screen three months and eighty-five meetings later. This one passed the test for me.

Agree, disagree, suggest your own.

Advertisements
Categories: marketing ramblings

The art of persuasion

September 6, 2018 Leave a comment

Last Sunday, I was at Addenbrookes Hospital in Cambridge for the day. In the Food Court, which is a bit of a living tribute to 1990s motorway service stations, there’s a Burger King. As a member of the metropolitan media elite, I’d already wolfed my quinoa and birdseed granary roll from M&S, but my brother-in-law isn’t a ponce, and opted for a burger.

So far, so good – until he asked for a Coke to go with it, and was told he couldn’t have one. He was, however, able to enjoy a Coke Zero, whatever that is, or a Diet Coke. Apparently, this was because of “a hospital policy promoting healthy options”. It’s fair to say that my brother was as bemused as he was disappointed, but the endorphin-rush provided by the calorific content of his Whopper with cheese provided ample consolation.

After pondering the contorted piece of thinking that stipulated no sugar at a saturated fat concession, I thought about the various ways in which society and the state has tried to regulate our intake of things that may or may not be bad for you, depending on which decade you find yourself living in.

At present, as I understand it, sugar = bad. Fat can be good, or bad, but margarine, which was touted as the healthy alternative to butter (bad) is now bad itself (good). Processed meat is bad, and processed red meat (bacon) is especially bad. White meat is good, unless it’s a turkey twizzler, cigarettes are very bad and hard drugs are still illegal. But alcohol and gambling are good for you.

I may be getting some mixed signals here.

In the last few years, sugar has become public enemy number one, and there’s now talk of stopping under 16s buying energy drinks. However, I much preferred the days when the government would chuck a couple of million quid at the brightest and best agencies in London and ask for TV commercials encouraging people to alter their behaviour rather than banning things. I’m not a libertarian, but I am a believer in the wisdom of old English aphorisms, and if there’s a wiser piece of advice than “everything is alright in moderation” then I’ve yet to come across it.

There may be evidence to the contrary, but I’m pretty certain that the excellent anti-drink driving campaigns of the 80s and 90s ensured that a few generations were brought up knowing that such behaviour was unacceptable, with similar results for smoking, too.

Sugar, in excess, is bad for you. Pretty much in the way that anything in excess is bad for you. A double whammy of pressure on producers and a public information campaign would, I am sure, have the desired effect. But banning Coca Cola at a Burger King? The world’s gone mad.

 

Strongbow vs Toyota: Let battle commence

July 25, 2018 1 comment

As the World Cup recedes into memory, taking with it the brief outbreak of optimism and happiness that accompanied it, I have found myself in a midsummer reverie, slumped in front of the TV watching T20 cricket and Bob Mortimer fishing with Paul Whitehouse.

Then, occasionally, one of these execrable TV commercials plays, and I remember that life isn’t quite as simple and enjoyable as I thought.

Exhibit A:

Exhibit B:

 

The Strongbow ad is an example of a client accidentally vomiting their brief on to the table in front of the agency, then watching in horror as the account team picks out pieces of “millennials”, “ethnically diverse”, “fucking awful soundtrack”, “every festival cliche you’ve ever seen” and rearranges them into a form designed to humiliate everyone involved in the project.

The Toyota ad is worse.

Enjoy.

 

Hey, how about another Brexit post?

July 6, 2018 3 comments

Over a year ago, I listened to Keir Starmer talk eloquently about Brexit. Last night (5th July) at the Brand Exchange, I did so again.

Like Keir, I’m not going to argue about the rights or wrongs of voting for Brexit. I’m sure among our many readers there are those who voted leave and those who voted remain. Also like Keir, I’m not going to get into debating the rights or wrongs of the reasons – perceived or actual – why people voted the way they did. Many people were, and are, generally dissatisfied with the state of their lives, and voted for change. Any change.

That’s certainly what they’re going to get. For the second time, I was impressed by the non-partisan, considered and calm approach the former Director of the CPS is taking to his thankless task, but blimey, this was a depressing evening.

IMG_6457

Peter Kellner and Sir Keir Starmer, MP, telling it like it is

It was always highly likely that Brexit, hard or soft, would lead to an economic contraction in the period after our departure. That’s not to say it isn’t in our long term interests as a nation – you’ll have your own thoughts on that – but even the softest Brexit will result, in the short term at least, in logistical costs and a economic adjustment that will outweigh any putative ‘Brexit dividend’. The EU is not designed to be cheap, or easy, to leave. I guess the question is how long this period will last. If you listen to the business community, it may be a while.

Most businesses wanted to remain. They still want to remain. As was pointed out last night, most business leaders stress that they actively don’t want the deregulation that the arch-Brexiters champion; they want consistency of regulation with EU countries and with trading blocs outside the EU. Anything else will require large-scale adjustment and potentially unsustainable rises in costs.

And, of course, businesses want access to the biggest possible labour markets and the best global employees. That’s completely understandable, even if it’s bad news for economies in eastern Europe and leads (obviously) to an increase in immigration. This is the economic model we have chosen. Unless we maintain reasonably high levels of immigration, it’s almost certain we’ll have to pay more tax or watch our denuded public services collapse. That isn’t ideology, it’s maths.

Here’s a recipe for a recession: take one ageing population, throw in a smaller GDP, add a lower tax take (fewer immigrants, a smaller workforce, not to mention the highly probable rise in unemployment thanks to the economic shock), and, well, things are going to be tough. For at least 5-10 years. Maybe more. Starting, at a guess, with a recession in q4 2019.

That is certainly change. But is it the change people voted for? If your life was already shit, maybe it is. I’m no fan of neoliberal economics, and all in favour of creating a new model, but maybe stripping out and replacing the parts over an extended period of time might be preferable to driving into a wall at high speed.

The ‘business community’ doesn’t always speak for me. Too often, it’s focused on profit at the expense of everything else. But as Airbus, Land Rover et al line up to say that a hard Brexit is going to be a catastrophe for them, and, by extension, their employees and the communities in which they’re based, couldn’t the ideologues within the government at least acknowledge that Brexit is not what they sold us?

What piece of bad news – such as, for example, three or four car manufacturers saying they’re definitely leaving – would be enough for Liam Fox to stop using the phrase ‘Project Fear’? What scenario would be gloomy enough for Boris Johnson to say that on reflection, a hard Brexit would be too damaging?

Like those Republicans keeping Trump in power, the hard Brexiters are too cowardly, craven and self-interested to change course. What’s more, they don’t care about you. They never have and they never will. And to hell with the consequences of their actions.

Now that’s depressing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proof is in the podcast

June 29, 2018 2 comments

I spent most of my teens and twenties recommending bands to other people. These days, it’s podcasts.

I’ve mentioned Athletico Mince before in this blog. It’s basically Bob Mortimer being Bob Mortimer, ably assisted by Andy Dawson who manages to balance genuflection at his partner’s comedy genius with his own contribution to the entertainment value perfectly. If the idea of Peter Beardsley confessing the intimate secrets of a life that sees him continually forced to prepare poached eggs for his emotionally abusive wife makes you smile, this may be for you.

In the past couple of weeks I have discovered another series that causes me to involuntarily snort on public transport in the shape of Dear Joan and Jericha, which involves Vicki Pepperdine and Julia Davis playing agony aunts. That’s all you need to know: just listen.

But I’m here to talk about Revisionist History, Malcolm Gladwell’s quite brilliant examination of “things overlooked and misunderstood”. I started listening during series 2 and am looking forward to going back to listen to series 1, but series 3 is strong and provides as good a starting point as any.

gladwell-podcast

In episode 2, Gladwell asks how much proof we require before we act on something that seems, clearly, to demand action. To make his point, he references lung disease in coalminers and brain damage in football players (not soccer players, for clarity). I had thought he would mention the elephant in the room – which in this case, is the fact that there may soon be no elephants left to put in a room. But he leaves climate change and the mass extinction we are currently idly undergoing out of the podcast, letting us, I assume bring our own examples to the table.

Why am I recommending this? Because nearly every episode contains an insight so jaw-dropping and breathtaking that I have discovered for myself how those idioms gained traction. Gladwell has always had a gift for revelation, but this podcast is the perfect medium for him.

Episode 5 of the current run is the perfect example: 30 minutes of erudition, poetry and forensic storytelling; an argument so elegantly and artfully structured that when the lightbulb finally goes on it floors you. It culminates in one of the more staggering mic drops I have heard. If, like me, you despair of the ignorance, bigotry and hate that seems to pervade most online debate, listen to this brain balm and play it to the next person who thinks that putting up more barriers and building more walls is a good idea. Reader (spoiler alert), it isn’t.

 

 

“Fuck business”

Whether you’re pro- or anti-Brexit, I think we can all agree that Boris “These are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others” Johnson has very much lived up to his his personal brand values this week; assuming that these values comprise hypocrisy, self-interest and perpetually demonstrating your utter unsuitability for any public office. You may have read his response to the anything but idle threats of assorted businesses (Airbus, BMW etc.) to do one in the event of a no deal Brexit.

“Fuck business”, said Boris. I thought his indiscriminate fucking days were over. These days, it seems Boris won’t lie down for anything; even the prevention of a runway being built next to his constituency. But I digress.

As a business owner, I particularly resent Johnson’s dismissal of business concerns, especially as his party has traditionally been regarded as the party of business. In truth, all parties are “the party of business”; until we stop measuring our prosperity according to GDP figures, they have to be.

And despite my personal antipathy to many of the excesses of present-day capitalism, I and my Breakfast colleagues couldn’t be more pro-business if we tried.

Every working day, we spend our time trying to grow our clients’ businesses – and our own – while hoping that our politicians do their best to make that task as simple as possible. That doesn’t mean removing red tape or slashing corporation tax: it means providing a stable, predictable and safe business environment where our innate optimism can flourish.

It means allowing us to advertise our clients’ brands to customers all over the world; to attract people here and enable them to move freely; to reduce barriers and borders rather than increase them, and to provide a progressive and inclusive society in which everyone enjoys the spoils of our undoubted wealth.

Is that too much to ask? According to Boris, it is.

 

 

The beautiful football index

On Tuesday 19th June, Ed and I attended the 2018 Brand Finance Football Forum at the Brand Exchange. It’s the event at which the ‘Football 50′ report is formally launched – the Football 50 being the annual snapshot of the state of leading clubs’ finances.

As a lifelong football obsessive, talking about clubs as brands used to irritate me – and to some extent still does. But the world moves on, and it’s clear that not only are many of Europe’s major football clubs brands, they are huge brands. Indeed it might be that in future I write a longer blog, requiring more thought, research and effort, analysing the similarities between Real Madrid and Amazon, for example. Bet you can’t wait.

Anyway, bookended by interesting talks from Brand Exchange Director Bryn Anderson (responsible for the football study) and Matthew Birchall’s fascinating study of stadium design, Nuria Tarre gave an excellent and genuinely eye-opening insight into the marketing at City Football Group. That’s City Football Group, who, if you weren’t aware, comprise Manchester City FC, New York City FC, Melbourne City FC and a couple of other affiliated clubs who don’t have City in their name. Yet.

It was immediately apparent to me that CFG are operating at a different level to other football clubs/ brands/ groups, mainly because they have created formal, transparent links between clubs without ruining those clubs and driving them out of business (yes, Arsenal, I’m talking about you). And, by taking an underperforming club who were lagging behind some of their rivals, they have had a relatively free hand to instil radical change on the back of their oil-money fuelled success.

harry_kane_goal_england_tunisia_world_cup_group_g_gettyimages-978047946

Here’s a picture of Harry Kane. No excuse required.

The group has clear objectives and is at the forefront of social media-led marketing and e-gaming initiatives, all carefully controlled and on message (compare and contrast with Roy Keane slagging off teammates on Manchester United’s own TV channel: awks!). Within Nuria’s slick presentation and accompanied by several pictures of Kyle Walker arsing around (I suspect there were cheaper right backs available last summer who are not quite so keen to laugh at themselves and generate valuable online content), the nugget that stood out for me was this: Manchester City use a “beautiful football index” to judge, after every game, whether they are playing in the style required by their Emirati overlords. Really.

On many levels, this makes sense. If you are truly creating a brand, you will have some brand values; if you have design on being a world-class brand, you’ll live by those values and stick to them – see my past post about Virgin removing the Daily Mail from its trains to see my thoughts on that.

But from a footballing/ sporting perspective, this is a real eye-opener. Next time you hear Fat Sam chuntering about fans wanting to “win games” more than anything, or Tony Pulis asking rhetorically what people mean by “attractive football”, refer them to the Beautiful Football Index. One day it might literally be in their job description to play attractive football. Their inability to supply this is, after all, why West Ham, West Brom and Everton supporters couldn’t wait to get rid of them.

Maybe the time is ripe for an enterprising club chairman to give Sam a 10-year contract and tell him to construct a “challenger brand” club, whose objectives are to stick it in the mixer at least 20 times a game and keep the grass in the corners longer, a la John Beck. After all, not all brands can be identical. This brand might attract the tiki-taka haters: Wimbledon were there years ago.

Is it time for Arsenal to revert to their true type and return to the ultra-defensive, cynical template perfected by Bertie Mee, Don Howe and George Graham? Or, more realistically, for Chelsea to sink into midtable mediocrity in front of a stadium at least a third-full of ignorant racists? They’re halfway there already. Some fascinating branding opportunities await.

Not all football clubs will be, or should be, brands. But some will have to be if they are to keep pace with their rivals. Their income, and therefore to a large extent their success on the pitch, will be dependant on attracting fans and revenue from places such as China and India, before those nations’ own leagues become so established that they don’t have to look to England or Spain for football. That might not be true for Enfield Town FC or even Swansea City, but it will be for those at the top of the Premier League.

Why? Because the other unstated but self-evident truth that emerged from Nuria’s talk is that a European league is inevitable within the next five to ten years – something  Sir Alex Ferguson also believes. CFG’s business model cannot possibly sustain the prolonged disappearance of its flagship club from the Champions League. The damage to the brand would be too great. Assuming they’re not permitted to continue spending with impunity or gaming the Financial Fair Play rules (and if they keep winning the Premier League by 19 points, the other clubs will make sure they’re reeled in), they, and the other biggest European clubs, will need some sort of guarantee that they will always be playing each other.

I suspect the Champions League as we know it will soon become a two division midweek European league comprising six clubs from England, four from Italy, Spain and Germany and the odd Ajax or Porto to keep the smaller nations sweet. The top two/four/eight will go into a knockout stage and the Champions League Final will still exist.

In the meantime, I will be at the new White Hart Lane, watching England’s best footballers play the entertaining, enthralling and exciting football that is at the heart of the Tottenham Hotspur brand; my enjoyment only tempered by their other distinctive trait: that of managing to cock things up when it seems impossible.

IMG_20180418_141843

Glory, glory…er…cranes