Companies must have lawful employment and other policies. Some may go further than legally required, in their parental policies or healthcare cover, for example. But should those positions be actively promoted in their brands’ marketing communications?

There have long been brands that did exactly that. The Body Shop was founded nearly fifty years ago on Anita Roddick’s activism around protecting the environment, no animal testing, fair employment and fair trade. You bought the brand knowing that’s what it was about. Ben and Jerry’s ice-cream is almost as old, founded by two old hippies who built irreverence and rebellion into the brand, with product names like Karamel Sutra and Cherry Garcia (after their rock idol Jerry Garcia).

That’s not Bud Light though. It’s a mainstream beer often bought without much thought at all. As craft and speciality beers grow, its giant volume is being chipped away, but it’s still the market leader in the USA, perhaps because it’s the default option for a lot of people, a lot of the time. All the same, the VP of Marketing (until recently) wasn’t happy with that. She said Bud Light had been seen as “a brand of fratty, kind of out-of-touch humour” and she wanted to change it. Among her initiatives was to send Dylan Mulvaney some Bud Light cans with Dylan’s face on them, which Dylan featured in social media posts about Bud Light. It’s safe to assume Bud Light paid Dylan for these.

Rather predictably, Bud Light’s core customers didn’t like it. Rather than seeing it as making the brand more inclusive, it came across as preachy and teachy. Were guys across America now expected to think Dylan’s year of womanhood was something they too should celebrate? Kid Rock was one of many who said no, and sales crashed.

So are Bud Light customers transphobic? More likely they are sick of having this agenda pushed into everyday life. Ordering a beer is not a teaching moment. There is a huge disconnect between corporate executives and ordinary people on whether brands should be speaking out on social issues. In a recent survey by the Brunswick Group, 63% of corporate executives thought they should be, while only 36% of the general public agreed. Similarly, on the question of whether corporate activism is effective, 75% of executives said yes, versus 39% of the public. Almost two thirds of people think brands taking a stand on social issues are just virtue-signalling.

This specific issue is particularly polarising. Even many people who have no objection to transgender identification are troubled by the casual way in which Mulvaney appears to have appropriated womanhood, literally as a costume. (See also the Nike sponsored posts for women’s gym apparel including a bra which Dylan definitely doesn’t need.) So the issue is compounded by the fact that Dylan clearly lacks authenticity. That has rubbed off on the brand that decided to sponsor it. The VP of marketing got what she paid for, but not what she intended.

The chief executive of Bud Light owner Anheuser-Busch InBev blamed “misinformation and confusion” on social media. He defended the activity, saying “it was one post. It was not an advertisement.” As so often, the explanation just makes things worse. So what if it was just a post? Didn’t you want people to see it? Or is this a half-hearted way of withdrawing support for the endorsement of Mulvaney? His statement seems like the ultimate proof that they were never really committed to this agenda, thus proving that it did indeed lack authenticity. Result: neither side is happy. They would have been better off if they’d done nothing at all.

The post Bud Light: brand purpose or virtue-signalling? appeared first on Clearhound.

How does this happen? It’s easy to be wise in hindsight. Let’s look at the advertising development process to see where it may have gone off the rails, and where it should have been stopped.

The brief from the client at John Lewis to the ad agency was probably ok. Let’s make another lovely ad like Tiny Dancer (in which no damage occurs).

The agency team worked up ideas, turned them into scripts, pitched them to the client, until they found one they agreed on. At this stage, was it clear that the core idea, the ultimate peace of mind that accidental damage cover gives, was not a core benefit of John Lewis home insurance? That’s ok if it’s going to be made crystal clear it’s an add-on.

My guess is that things first went wrong either at script stage, or in pre-production. They got carried away virtue-signalling. Instead of making an ad focused on the brief, they really went to town on the freedom of self-expression. It’s a bit of a leap from accidental damage cover to the ultimate in enlightened parenting, but that’s where they pitched their tent. Hence the mother idly watching while the boy trashes the place. He’s just expressing himself. The laundry brand Persil has a version of this, in a long-running campaign called Dirt is Good. But it’s tightly bound to the product benefit. Play is healthy and developmental, so let the kids play, knowing Persil will help you wash their clothes clean.

The John Lewis idea was similar, but either at script stage or in the boundary-pushing hands of the director, it wandered way beyond letting a child express themselves. It became a demonstration of wanton destruction of other people’s stuff, held together in a camp display that no nine year old has ever performed without adult direction. Little boys do dress up and act as Mummy but unless Mummy does drag or has a serious problem with alcohol it doesn’t look like this.

Then in post-production, they went full Desmond Is Amazing. Post-production is when the raw material is edited, and the music is chosen. That shot of the boy pouting into the camera was dubious. “Edge of Seventeen” left no room for doubt. At that stage, the clients, or the agency account team, should have been saying, is this a bit too sexualised? Is that really reflecting John Lewis values? Eventually the finished ad was signed off as ready to go on air. That also involves multiple people. Always there is a legal or compliance person, who should have said, this misrepresents the product. That’s the official reason the ad’s been pulled. But not before a lot of classic John Lewis target market, middle England, women complained about how inappropriate it was to show a prepubescent boy like this, and to cast his sister and mother in utterly passive roles while he deliberately harms their stuff. Mumsnetters had plenty to say about this. But mostly, John Lewis, we’re just very disappointed in you.

The post John Lewis: so right-on it’s wrong appeared first on Clearhound.

“I will take a break like never before”  

“What better time for us to be brave than now?” 

“I promise to be better just for you.” 

I like Coca Cola. Consumed in moderation, it’s a relatively benign treat. Years of advertising about how Coke is it, et al, have created a fuzzy association in my mind between Coke and being happy. So when I pour it, I get a teensy subliminal rush of joy. It takes a long time for a brand to build that kind of response, especially a brand that doesn’t really do anything much, functionally. Hats off to the Coca Cola Company for that. It’s an achievement any brand manager would envy. 

So why dissociate the feelgood from the brand, and turn it into some sort of personal self-improvement drive? I feel like I’m being admonished to do better. Maybe it’s meant to inspire. But I don’t look to Coke for inspiration.  

Brand purpose is a useful concept but it can lead to mission creep. These days, it can seem as if fizzy drinks and smoothies aren’t here to be enjoyed. They’re here to transform our lives and improve the world. And, in this case, to propose that we improve ourselves. 

According to the senior vice-president of marketing for Europe, Middle East and Africa, they’ve decided that “empathy should be the ‘lighthouse’ guiding Coke’s actions going forward”. Empathy would be understanding that little moments of pleasure mean more than usual in the current climate. And letting us savour them. 

Just like the people claiming to have written a book/ learned a language/ redecorated their house in lockdown one, this latest salvo from Coke is best ignored. Brands should give a benefit, not make demands of its consumers. Alanis Morrisette might have something to say about that. Have a cup of tea and a chocolate digestive instead.  

The truth is that this is an extraordinary brand. Coca Cola has built global recognition, reputation, and positive associations, through consistent upbeat communications through thick and thin. It’s no coincidence that Santa Claus wears Coca Cola red. Somehow this explicit call to action is breaking the spell. Businesses are expected to operate responsibly, but that needn’t extend to sanctimony. Thing is, Coke can cheer me up just by being Coke. Have they forgotten that?  

The post Coca Cola’s “Open to better” campaign misses the mark appeared first on Clearhound.

Many a brand manager claims that success will come from building a small but immensely loyal following. Marmite embraced the fact that some people can’t stand the stuff with its “Love it or hate it” advertising. But don’t be fooled. This isn’t like picking a president. Even people who love Marmite don’t eat it exclusively in their sandwiches or on their toast. In any category where there is regular repeat purchase, such as grocery products, big brands are bought by more people, more of the time. Small brands don’t have a tiny cadre of devoted followers; they are bought some of the time by some people. The idea that aiming to be perfectly appealing to a small segment is a winning strategy for a grocery brand was debunked by the work of English academic Andrew Ehrenberg and popularised by his Australian protégé Byron Sharp in his book How Brands Grow. Instead, they argue, market penetration is the key to success for fmcg brands.

It is different in categories where you can only use one at a time, and buy infrequently. Few people who have an Apple iphone considers Samsung when it’s time to upgrade, or vice versa. Even where we are not tied in by familiarity with a system, a strongly defined position that some will love and many will reject can still work, especially if it’s at a price premium. Farrow & Ball, the upmarket paint brand, is easy to mock for its quintessential Englishness and its cutsey names. (The title of this piece uses two of the mildest.) But they don’t seem to mind. Enough people are willing to sport out two and a half times the price of a gallon of B&Q white for a can of Farrow & Ball Old White™ – and it’s not even white.

The universal truth, for all categories, is that brands grow in one of three ways. More people buy them, or people buy them more often, or they use more. There is a parallel with voting here: getting the vote out can be a winning strategy. Brands that stimulate purchase, consumption, and ultimately regular repeat purchase, will thrive. Here, lateral-thinking marketers have a huge advantage over the politicos. We can expand the market. We can even compete in different markets – not just new geographies but new sectors. A breakthrough in thinking at the Coca Cola Company was when they stopped thinking about share of the cola market or even the fizzy drinks market and started thinking about share of throat, i.e. all drinks consumption. It’s said of Colman’s mustard powder that all the profit comes from what we throw away. This is not a good place to be. Marmite is trying to stimulate consumption by teaming up with grocery and food delivery companies to be included in their recipes, a tactic used by many a condiment and now being imitated by others.

Bottom line? Don’t start with your product or even your category. Start with users, and think about all the ways your category, product and brand can fit into their lives. From there, you can build great communications campaigns, and you will find opportunities to innovate in product, packaging and distribution, just as Coke did.

The post Is it All White™ to be polarising, or will your efforts fall on Stony Ground™? appeared first on Clearhound.

+  Process and service innovation

Enforced change doesn’t have to be for the worse. Some businesses have responded to enforced changes to create new ways to serve customers, which generate efficiencies and keep the show on the road. They’re mostly process-related, and they can be beneficial to customers too. Mostly we don’t bother to consider change unless we have to, but we may well stick with it once tried, as described here.

+  Brand-building

Cutting marketing communications is a common response to recession, but there’s robust evidence that brands that maintain their visibility through advertising reap long term benefits that last way beyond the recession period. This is a good time to revisit your brand proposition and ensure it’s relevant and focused. Then communicate that with confidence. Not sure what to say in these troubled times? Have a look here

+  Stimulating consumption with product and usage ideas

Big data has transformed our ability to see changing trends. It used to be a long slow and esoteric process. Now, businesses like Black Swan crunch all sorts of data sets in real time to give businesses early warning of changes in demand, new tastes and emerging preferences. Spotting behaviour change can be very simple. If you know Google searches for cocktail shakers are up, then promoting cocktail recipes and launching new flavours, as Gordon’s did, isn’t such a shot in the dark.

Remember the home-baking frenzy early in lockdown? Marketers at Baileys picked up online chatter about making “luxurious desserts” and started sending out recipe ideas involving – of course – Baileys. They followed through by making sure it was easy to shop the recipes at food retailers’ online stores. UK sales of Baileys are reportedly up this year. There’s more on the Baileys story here.

The post Three ways to respond to pandemic uncertainty appeared first on Clearhound.

So, what should brands do in the Covid crisis? First, the things not to do:

1. Don’t assume you have to say anything

Maybe you should just save the money. Too many businesses seem to see this as a pretext to use their email database. Banks and retailers with whom I have the most tenuous connection – I can’t call it a relationship –  are emailing to reassure me they are here for me. So, apparently, is the motor dealership where I once bought a car. Cool, cool.

It’s a lot more public, and more expensive, for those brands seemingly competing for title of Most Vacuous on television, as demonstrated in this compilation.

2. Don’t make it about you (unless it is).

Believing advertising has an impact means accepting that its impact can be negative. It’s hard to advertise without making it about you, but in a crisis that’s not going to land well unless it’s really worth saying. Test that premise. Who needs to hear this message? Do they need it now? Can it be targeted to those who really need it rather than broadcast? Does it look self-serving if we say this now?

There are some things you can do

1. Be relevant

Top marks to John Lewis for emails that are both relevant and stimulating-  garden accessories, things you can put on your balcony, outdoor games. Tesco is advertising its early-morning opening hours which are restricted to NHS and social care workers. This is not virtue-signalling, it’s useful both to those who will be allowed in at that time and those who won’t.

Retailers and banks are emailing their access arrangements, which is marginally useful and not overly intrusive. Airlines telling me about their cleaning practices are less welcome – they could wait until I ask. I have yet to see a bank email me personally or as a business to tell us how we can apply for government assistance or a business support loan.

2. Remove friction

This is always a worthwhile goal. People love those little tweaks that make things easy. Sometimes people can tell you in research what they’d like, but humans are adaptable, so we tend to accept and accommodate rather than complain. Companies must challenge their own assumptions and processes. Apple is a master of this: unlocking a phone with a pin code seemed fine until we got fingerprint recognition. Then face ID made that feel like a faff.

There’s a clear divide between those businesses that have been proactive on behalf of customers and those that have maintained friction to protect short term revenue. Most gym groups automatically suspended membership when going to the gym became a proscribed activity. By contrast, even though pay-TV sport channels had no live sport to offer, Sky, Virgin Media and BT Sport waited for the customer to make the effort to cancel. Looking at direct competitors in the sector can give a false sense of security to businesses. Most customers only have one of those in our home; our comparisons are with brands in other sectors. It’s not a capability issue, either. Once live sport resumes Sky will automatically restart your subscription. Yes, taking your money is automated.

3. Be useful

Some businesses that can’t run as normal are doing impressive things, repurposing to serve key workers or to manufacture critical goods such as personal protective equipment. Some that can’t do this are donating hard cash. British Airways staff have been serving breakfast in uniform to NHS staff, which is a lovely stunt, cynical perhaps but still appealing, and garnering some good media coverage. It is tempting to announce whatever you’re doing. But you don’t have to tell everyone, right now. It may be something for shareholders, or people in the loyalty scheme. It might, in any case, be better to let someone else publicise your good work. Or wait to be asked. Or tell us after the crisis, when you have the full story.

On the other hand, some smaller businesses are seizing the moment to get attention. A sex fetish website called MedfetUK announced on Twitter that it had donated its stock of PPE for more conventional use during the pandemic. It’s not clear what they hope to gain, though. Surely this is relevant only to customers and potential customers – and for them it’s the unwelcome news that their favourite fetish items will be out of stock for the foreseeable.

4. Think long term

There is robust evidence that advertising in a recession builds brand value which pays back when the economy recovers. But perhaps the most important opportunity, available to even the most cash-strapped business, is to use the time to rethink. Marketing is not just communications, after all. Revisit those hefty seminal pieces of work like market segmentation that can yield gems if you have the luxury of time to explore them. Look again at the fundamentals of your brand, your category, your business model. Finally, we are free from running from meeting to meeting. What a chance to innovate.

The post Marketing in a time of crisis appeared first on Clearhound.

There are some areas of business where there are right or best ways to do things, such as operational safety, legal and regulatory compliance, cyber-security. Marketing has its own best practices, in the principles of strategic marketing: understanding and segmenting the market, knowing the target customer and how to create value for them, delivering on the expectation set up by the proposition and brand. Those principles are just as relevant in a digital world. But these shouldn’t be confused with an actual proposition, or a brand’s look and feel; these are brand-specific.

As digital marketers rise to become the marketing leaders in their businesses, there is a growing tension. Non-marketers will naturally value the digital native advocating best practice in the brave new digital world. But so-called best practice is no substitute for brand strategy. Applied in the wrong places, it dampens down personality and flattens a brand’s distinctive voice into a monotone. It stifles proposition development and communication, tending to generic output when something distinctive may be more effective. Best practice can kill innovation stone dead. If everyone is copying everyone else, how does anything new appear? If Steve Jobs had followed industry best practice, we might all still be logging in on a DOS screen.

Here are the warning signs that digital marketing’s voice may be too loud in your business:

Website design that is based largely on how others do it, rather than what users of your website need and want. Counter this with user journeys. They prompt everyone to think about the needs of the various types of people who may visit the site, including current and potential customers and others like media and investors.

Calls to action everywhere on the website, especially the same CTA. Digital marketers are often measured on lead generation but a website is not a brochure or a sales pitch to potential customers. Nor will a sophisticated buyer be impressed. If I’m browsing in a clothes shop, I don’t want someone constantly at my shoulder saying, like to try anything on? This is easily solved with tailored landing pages for lead gen campaigns; there’s no need for the website to seek to ensnare the idle browser (or current client, or curious investor, or future employee) at every turn.

Marketing planning conversations that aren’t about customers or different user needs. Colleagues who are driven by lead generation tend to be single-minded about getting short term measurable outcomes. This can compromise the building of trust with prospects. It may also be at the expense of other audiences who matter to the long term success of the business. A customer-centred approach will help you find common ground.

Pointing to direct competitors as the key justification for recommendations. Fear Of Missing Out is not a strategy. Other brands’ choices are interesting and informative but unless their strategy is the same as yours they are not a reliable guide.

Try these simple rules to stay on track:

Have your own brand personality and tone of voice, and use it as a reference across everything. Bearing in mind, of course, that brand-building is not an end in itself – the goal is effective customer connection, not self-expression.

Speak the customer’s language not your own. In b2b, use their generic industry terms not yours. Prospective customers are experts in their business, not in ours. So we need to get into their world, and speak their language. For example, a software provider to the HR sector needs to speak HR language so as to connect with primary decision-makers, who will be HR people not IT experts.

Go where your customers are. Best practice steers you to focus on what competitors are doing. A brand-centric approach dares you to be different. Combine this with customer-centric thinking and go to their industry events, not your own. Don’t worry about where your competitors are. This can deliver tactical advantage – you may find you’re the only one of your type in a sea of potential clients.

Copy if it saves you reinventing something where it’s ok to be the same as everyone else. Some digital marketing best practice is valuable. Generic industry-standard language is essential for search engine optimisation, for strong natural search results – bearing in mind it’s the search terms clients and prospects use that matter, not what the experts say. Some standardisation of a site such as icons, and perhaps navigation, can make sense if they’re familiar to your customers and prospects. That means referencing their world, not just your direct competitors’ activity.

Don’t copy in any area where differentiation matters. If innovation seeks the next big idea, best practice leads to conformity. If you’re aiming to create an exciting new flavour, don’t end up vanilla.

The golden rule: Set up your marketing communications and interfaces to enable customers to get what they need, not what you want them to do. If you’ve followed marketing best practice, your proposition will give them what they need, and they’ll click on the Call me button, not out of frustration but because they want it.

The post The perils of best practice appeared first on Clearhound.

First, the one that worked. In November 2019 Coldplay launched their new album, Everyday Life, by announcing the track listing in the classified ads section of local newspapers. They chose papers that band members had some connection with. The press ad was nothing more than a simple track listing: not a genuine classified, then, but part of a media stunt which also involved letters to selected fans to ensure it was picked up. It was duly reported and much discussed in national media. Great result. Full marks to Coldplay for an endearing use of old media, which was amply rewarded in new and old media coverage.

The month before, Glenlivet’s whisky pods attracted ridicule. They were in fact a limited edition product for London Cocktail Week but that didn’t stop a tirade of negativity on Twitter. Was that fair? It’s safe to assume these aren’t aimed at a demographic whose first thought on seeing them is, Will these shift stains in a low temperature wash? Nor, indeed, at Glenlivet’s own core market. It could be a cunning way to bring whisky to the Jägerbomb generation, or just a fun way to smuggle more whisky into cocktails. The social media frenzy reminded us all that Glenlivet is there, but it felt badly out of tune with the world of single malt whisky, which is all firesides and Scottish peat bogs.

Now in their 20^th year, Coldplay are music industry veterans, focused on those who already love them. In using old media in a novel way they did something fresh but not shocking. Their stunt felt authentic, which will endear them even more to current fans and may attract new ones.

Glenlivet’s move is a stranger one. The pod concept feels entirely out of character. A weird new product is more problematic than an oddball media move, even if both are transient, because product format is much more central to the brand than marketing communications. So what’s the value of producing a novel format for a promotional event? It has to be good to be worth the risk of alienating the core customer base. Perhaps, like the concept cars at motor shows that are part of the development process, there is more to come from Glenlivet. But I think it more likely this is a quirky idea someone dreamed up in the moment for a bit of fun at London Cocktail Week.

One of the biggest decisions brands must make is whether to focus on retaining current customers, perhaps increasing their consumption, or on attracting new customers, to widen and future-proof the franchise. Neither is inherently better, but it’s much easier to do one well. To those people who shout triumphantly, why not both? I say, that’s not as smart as you think it is. The infamous New Coke fiasco was the result of efforts to attract Pepsi drinkers without considering how their most committed customers would feel about the change.

A brief flare-up on Twitter is soon forgotten. It’s not a worry for a brand that’s been around for almost 200 years, as Glenlivet has. But there’s a wider picture to consider. Time and investment in one thing is time and investment that could have gone elsewhere. And everything you do can have unintended consequences, which aren’t always apparent. I wrote about that here. Unless you believe all publicity is good publicity, the people around Glenlivet could perhaps have spent their time and energy better.

The post Can an old brand learn new tricks? appeared first on Clearhound.

The one on the right is closer to (my) home. This is one for anyone who believes the NHS is overly managed and perhaps bureaucratic. What is this sign saying? To whom? I can tell you, as I was standing outside it, that this is the entrance to Walton Community Hospital. That’s despite what the sign says. I?ve never heard of this Hub thing and have no idea what to expect of it or when I’d need it. Presumably this sign reflects some internal NHS regional organisation. But really, who needs to know that as they turn up for their appointment at Walton Community Hospital? It’s less than friendly isn’t it, and anything but patient-centric. Makes you wonder who thought that was a good idea. The no-smoking message is important, but like this?

Spare a thought for the staff who see these signs every day. Hardly inspiring. I’m betting there are people hard at work in internal communications teams in the NHS, maybe even in the Thames whatsit Hub, thinking about culture and engagement and how happy staff allegedly make happy customers (I say allegedly because here’s a counter-argument). They’ll have worked out a strategy and there’ll be all sorts of channels for execution – magazines and emails and team briefings and the like. That doesn’t come cheap.

Signage, on the other hand, is relatively cheap and long-lasting. Consequently, it tends to be delegated to property people who execute with cost and logistics in mind. This is truly a missed opportunity. Signage is outstanding value for money. It reaches staff and customers, day in day out. It deserves time and thought. A sign may be the first thing a customer sees. Care is needed unless “Keep off the grass” is indeed the welcoming message a hotel wishes to deliver to arriving guests. There’s form and content in a sign. Used thoughtfully, it’s an opportunity. In the wrong hands, gaffs may result.

The post Sign language for all appeared first on Clearhound.

The various public bodies that police advertising standards have always demanded that an advertisement be “legal, decent, honest and truthful”. Showing someone in a bad light is perfectly consistent with those standards. The most effective advertising is built on something we recognise, a truth about human nature. Stereotypes are a useful shorthand, widely understood and quickly communicated. Usually they contain at least a shred of truth. That’s why that Philadelphia ad came to be made. So this really is a step into social engineering.

While part of me welcomes this ruling, my professional self is uneasy at the implications, that we cannot reflect reality. Already the realities that are shown are carefully controlled. UK retailers’ blockbuster Christmas ads can look as if they’ve worked to a quota on ethnic diversity. But although close to 20% of the UK population have a disability – one in ten people have impaired mobility – you don’t see that much on TV. When disability is shown, as in the Maltesers ads, it’s portrayed in an over-the-top way that makes it the centre of the action instead of the disabled person just being there as a person. Attempting to broaden the range of society which is portrayed on tv is welcome, but we have a long way to go before it stops appearing effortful and just seems normal.

What saddens me about the two complaints is the numbers. It’s women who are most often stereotyped, as home-makers, shoppers, cooks and care-givers, and thus not shown in professional roles. Yet it seems that many more people object to men being shown as incompetent than care that women are being portrayed as limited to traditional roles. Our social conditioning leads to general acceptance of such sex-based stereotypes, and hence does not immediately see harm in reinforcing them. It seems negativity about men is more likely to be noticed than negativity about women. So if this new approach to advertising is to be effective, the regulator must ignore the numbers and set its own standards.

That advertising can be effective is not in doubt – otherwise it wouldn?’t need to be policed. This new ruling acknowledges the power of advertising, and challenges marketing professionals to use it to help change our world. Is that our job? You decide.

The post Is it your job to change the world? appeared first on Clearhound.