Perhaps it’s the recession, perhaps it's cyclical, perhaps it's happy coincidence or perhaps it’s the fact that I spent Sunday evening dancing to Nik Kershaw (http://bit.ly/aEB1ws), but I can’t be the only (just) 30-something noticing nostalgia creeping up the agenda recently?
Scargill’s back. Asil Nadir’s back on our shores – http://bit.ly/cc37pN – twenty years to ‘recuperate’? Whatever. Ken Clarke’s back in the cabinet. The A-Team’s back (albeit appallingly). And there’s that oddly stage-schooled girl on the X Factor who dresses like early Madonna. All we need is Ivor the Engine and the Clangers (here for your ‘hit’: http://bit.ly/OQqN7) and we’ll be sorted. Even the French are at it with a return to nostalgic cakes (quoting the Times P. 38 today: “The French disease is nostalgia and nowhere more so than for their cakes”). Marie Antoinette was right all along.
But we’re not just seeing it in the news. Realising the strong emotional potential of nostalgia and understanding how it can act as a ‘balm’ in hard times, brands are harking back to supposedly ‘better’ times.
Mars has brought back the ‘made to make your mouth water’ line for Starburst (now make them Opal Fruits again and while you’re at it, let’s have Marathon back). The ‘Tetley Tea Folk’ are back under the hackneyed guise of ‘by popular demand’ (http://bit.ly/aRpYWA). Virgin Atlantic, Persil, Fairy, M&S and Thinkbox have all been at it (thanks nicofell: http://bit.ly/cSHB95).
And what would a trend be without its own festival? The ‘Vintage at Goodwood’ festival a few weeks ago (http://bit.ly/aniXbN) celebrated all things British going back 5 decades, in collaboration with brands like B&Q, Bonhams, Audi, Fortnum’s, John Lewis, Tanqueray – the list is long and distinguished.
Brands with ‘nostalgic pull’ not looking to use it at a time when people are crying out for some comfort marketing are missing a trick. The key is in understanding how to create that warm feeling: lots of brands (Fairy, M&S, etc) take the easy route and simply re-introduce old ad mechanics and strap-lines. Cleverer ones (like Virgin Atlantic) hark back to a golden age in their industry in a contemporary way or celebrate the culture of a different age (as all the brands at Vintage@Goodwood have recognised).
Whatever the route, nostalgia is an emotionally effective marketing strategy and every brand should look at how to use it whilst the uncertainty of recession remains.
Thursday 26 August 2010
Monday 23 August 2010
Charity: 'nice to do' or 'nice little earner'?
Amongst ‘Stuff Bothering Me Lately’ is the fact that brands often keep their charity partnerships in a dark, dusty backroom watched over occasionally by bearded CSR types whilst they keep their sponsorships in a shiny penthouse with panoramic views of the sea and on-tap butler service from only the best and slickest staff.
As we’ve seen from recent events (see my last post) charitable giving is all the rage. And from a brand perspective it’s just as effective at pulling in the punters as the latest and greatest sport, talent, music or cultural sponsorship. This is partially because people ‘get’ charity and fundraising much more than they used to.
I’m a 70s child. Before I was born, charity hadn’t really hit the mainstream. It was all RNLI lifeboats that did fun things when you put a coin in and life-size ‘Guidedog for the Blind’ doggy banks. Then the 80s happened and the likes of Comic Relief (how old do I feel: http://bit.ly/8pCPEd) and Children in Need hit our screens. Charitable giving grew up. And ever since then we’ve got used to hearing about poverty, need and giving. Quite simply, we’ve all grown up with charity and it’s become as much a part of our lives as sport, music and celebrity.
And the old hackneyed charity tactics are long gone. New technology abounds. The Cricket Foundation’s Chance to Shine uses online technology as well as any brand (http://bit.ly/ds1MjL). De Paul’s ‘iHobo’ app explores technology as a means of educating people about homelessness (http://www.ihobo.org/). Some brands, like Ralph Lauren, tap into the creative industries for charity (http://artstars.polojeans.com/). Some become official partners (http://www.sportrelief.com/about/partners/sainsburys).
The possibilities are endless. But the critical thing is that for a brand, charity can be as much about hard commercial benefit as it is about creative engagement and fluffy feel-good.
A cleverly designed charity association can drive hard sales – just ask Sainsbury’s how its sales look on Red Nose Day or Pampers how its UNICEF campaign (http://bit.ly/cTI4He) has driven brand preference.
If you’re looking to boost your brand and business, charity could be the solution you’re looking for. And if you already have a charity association, dust it off and have a have a think about how it might work harder for you.
It probably deserves more respect.
As we’ve seen from recent events (see my last post) charitable giving is all the rage. And from a brand perspective it’s just as effective at pulling in the punters as the latest and greatest sport, talent, music or cultural sponsorship. This is partially because people ‘get’ charity and fundraising much more than they used to.
I’m a 70s child. Before I was born, charity hadn’t really hit the mainstream. It was all RNLI lifeboats that did fun things when you put a coin in and life-size ‘Guidedog for the Blind’ doggy banks. Then the 80s happened and the likes of Comic Relief (how old do I feel: http://bit.ly/8pCPEd) and Children in Need hit our screens. Charitable giving grew up. And ever since then we’ve got used to hearing about poverty, need and giving. Quite simply, we’ve all grown up with charity and it’s become as much a part of our lives as sport, music and celebrity.
And the old hackneyed charity tactics are long gone. New technology abounds. The Cricket Foundation’s Chance to Shine uses online technology as well as any brand (http://bit.ly/ds1MjL). De Paul’s ‘iHobo’ app explores technology as a means of educating people about homelessness (http://www.ihobo.org/). Some brands, like Ralph Lauren, tap into the creative industries for charity (http://artstars.polojeans.com/). Some become official partners (http://www.sportrelief.com/about/partners/sainsburys).
The possibilities are endless. But the critical thing is that for a brand, charity can be as much about hard commercial benefit as it is about creative engagement and fluffy feel-good.
A cleverly designed charity association can drive hard sales – just ask Sainsbury’s how its sales look on Red Nose Day or Pampers how its UNICEF campaign (http://bit.ly/cTI4He) has driven brand preference.
If you’re looking to boost your brand and business, charity could be the solution you’re looking for. And if you already have a charity association, dust it off and have a have a think about how it might work harder for you.
It probably deserves more respect.
Thursday 19 August 2010
Blair, Hope and Charity
I’ve decided to do another blog this week because a) my last one was crap (I’m learning, alright?) and b) this happened: http://bit.ly/aLtZEx. And this: http://bit.ly/byi9qh. And, of course, this: http://bit.ly/d3u4dU.
Firstly: every Billionaire, Sportsman and ex-Statesman worth his salt is giving their money away! Is there something they know that we don’t? Is the day of reckoning but days away? Have the Sun Valley club decided that poor is the new rich? Or have they all gone so far up Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (http://bit.ly/fAla) that not even a football club can satisfy their cravings?
Secondly: the contrasting reactions to all of this is striking. The majority (led of course by the Daily Wail: http://bit.ly/9vrRWM) had something bad to say about Tony Blair’s donation. Most people were happy about the Dispossessed Campaign and Ellison’s decision.
Many would argue that only Tony Blair (allegedly) started an illegal war. I’m not going to go into that – or indeed whether we should question the donations of Ellison, Gates, Buffet and Dispossessed donors because of the odd skeleton in their closet. The question of whether to turn down a personal or corporate donation because of previous shady practise is a WHOLE other post.
The point I want to make here is that the media are great at painting the blacks and the whites but rarely the greys – and this is never more true than with the way they have dealt with Blair’s donation.
The motivations behind charity donations are not black and white – they are grey and complex.
Of course pure altruism is a part of it – the pure, unadulterated pleasure of knowing that your money is doing some actual good. But there are also shadier motives. Alleviation of guilt is one. Who doesn’t feel a bit guilty sitting on the sofa eating Kettle chips whilst watching Kenyan kids rooting through a rubbish dump? Boasting is another. How many of us has worn a ‘Live Strong’ or ‘Making Poverty History’ bracelet? Or felt smug at 'out-giving' someone on a Justgiving page or charity auction?
Indeed, whole movements have been set up on the premise that altruism is not enough to get people to raise money: RED (http://www.joinred.com/splash.htm) presupposes people a) want stuff and b) want to show people they’ve done good. Comic Relief (http://www.comicrelief.com) and Warchild (http://www.warchild.org.uk/) give people entertainment in return for money. All charities use celebrities to get people's attention.
I could go on but the fact is that charity donation is never as simple or as cynical as this: http://bit.ly/cA2Yxq (what an ironically brazen and opportunistic piece of PR this is, by the way).
Whether you *dredges up his A-Level political theory* subscribe to the Hobbesian/Daily Mail (everyone is inherently evil, dammit, EVIL!) or the Lockeian point of view (everyone is reasonable and LOVELY!), you have to recognize that there are bits of good and bad in all of us.
So rather than pick apart peoples’ motives why can’t we simply rejoice in the good that leads people to donate? Let's prove we are all inherently good by celebrating the good news.
And recognising that a lot of Veterans will be better off for Blair's actions.
Firstly: every Billionaire, Sportsman and ex-Statesman worth his salt is giving their money away! Is there something they know that we don’t? Is the day of reckoning but days away? Have the Sun Valley club decided that poor is the new rich? Or have they all gone so far up Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (http://bit.ly/fAla) that not even a football club can satisfy their cravings?
Secondly: the contrasting reactions to all of this is striking. The majority (led of course by the Daily Wail: http://bit.ly/9vrRWM) had something bad to say about Tony Blair’s donation. Most people were happy about the Dispossessed Campaign and Ellison’s decision.
Many would argue that only Tony Blair (allegedly) started an illegal war. I’m not going to go into that – or indeed whether we should question the donations of Ellison, Gates, Buffet and Dispossessed donors because of the odd skeleton in their closet. The question of whether to turn down a personal or corporate donation because of previous shady practise is a WHOLE other post.
The point I want to make here is that the media are great at painting the blacks and the whites but rarely the greys – and this is never more true than with the way they have dealt with Blair’s donation.
The motivations behind charity donations are not black and white – they are grey and complex.
Of course pure altruism is a part of it – the pure, unadulterated pleasure of knowing that your money is doing some actual good. But there are also shadier motives. Alleviation of guilt is one. Who doesn’t feel a bit guilty sitting on the sofa eating Kettle chips whilst watching Kenyan kids rooting through a rubbish dump? Boasting is another. How many of us has worn a ‘Live Strong’ or ‘Making Poverty History’ bracelet? Or felt smug at 'out-giving' someone on a Justgiving page or charity auction?
Indeed, whole movements have been set up on the premise that altruism is not enough to get people to raise money: RED (http://www.joinred.com/splash.htm) presupposes people a) want stuff and b) want to show people they’ve done good. Comic Relief (http://www.comicrelief.com) and Warchild (http://www.warchild.org.uk/) give people entertainment in return for money. All charities use celebrities to get people's attention.
I could go on but the fact is that charity donation is never as simple or as cynical as this: http://bit.ly/cA2Yxq (what an ironically brazen and opportunistic piece of PR this is, by the way).
Whether you *dredges up his A-Level political theory* subscribe to the Hobbesian/Daily Mail (everyone is inherently evil, dammit, EVIL!) or the Lockeian point of view (everyone is reasonable and LOVELY!), you have to recognize that there are bits of good and bad in all of us.
So rather than pick apart peoples’ motives why can’t we simply rejoice in the good that leads people to donate? Let's prove we are all inherently good by celebrating the good news.
And recognising that a lot of Veterans will be better off for Blair's actions.
Monday 16 August 2010
Naomi, Brazilian porn and knowing your place.
Seeing Naomi sitting in her little ‘high fashion’ bubble at the Hague a couple of weeks ago and reading this – quite absurd – claim from her PR (http://bit.ly/cSEWTe) got me thinking about what happens when people – and brands – become separated from what they do best (in Naomi’s case, throwing stuff about).
For brands, as with people like Naomi and her PRs, this frequently leads to misinterpretation, ridicule and reputational breakdown. Marketing is littered with examples of brands flopping around like fishes out of water, gasping for more familiar air. Whether it’s Habitat entering the Iran Elections on Twitter (http://bit.ly/hxmnO), Dr Pepper exploring Brazilian porn (http://bit.ly/cRv66d), Louis Vuitton doing its bit for genocide (http://bit.ly/5dRUq) or Nestlé (allegedly) killing monkeys (http://bit.ly/9fg6I2), brands who try to operate outside their comfort zone often come a-cropper.
Ultimately, it’s about understanding the environment you’re in and adjusting your language, message and behaviour accordingly (the ABC of social etiquette). Habitat needed to better understand ‘twittiquette’. Dr Pepper needed to understand Facebook’s dirty mind. LV and Nestlé should know that responding in legalese is the best way to put a charity’s back up. And Naomi should know that talking about ‘inconvenience’ in the context of a genocide trial is hardly a wise move.
When brands get it right (usually thanks to some rigorous planning or at least taking a step back and having a proper think), the benefits can far outstrip the potential risks. Jimmy Choo (http://bit.ly/9pgsuy) and Debenhams’ (http://bit.ly/bLRnR) forays into new technology were exponential successes, for example. From IAMS Pet Insurance and Mars ice cream to Caterpillar shoes and watches and BMW espresso machines, those that succeed are those who have a good sense of their place in the world and a solid understanding of what they can offer by extending themselves.
Those that don’t face likely ridicule and reputational damage. Next time, Naomi, be better prepared. And drop (kick) your PRs.
For brands, as with people like Naomi and her PRs, this frequently leads to misinterpretation, ridicule and reputational breakdown. Marketing is littered with examples of brands flopping around like fishes out of water, gasping for more familiar air. Whether it’s Habitat entering the Iran Elections on Twitter (http://bit.ly/hxmnO), Dr Pepper exploring Brazilian porn (http://bit.ly/cRv66d), Louis Vuitton doing its bit for genocide (http://bit.ly/5dRUq) or Nestlé (allegedly) killing monkeys (http://bit.ly/9fg6I2), brands who try to operate outside their comfort zone often come a-cropper.
Ultimately, it’s about understanding the environment you’re in and adjusting your language, message and behaviour accordingly (the ABC of social etiquette). Habitat needed to better understand ‘twittiquette’. Dr Pepper needed to understand Facebook’s dirty mind. LV and Nestlé should know that responding in legalese is the best way to put a charity’s back up. And Naomi should know that talking about ‘inconvenience’ in the context of a genocide trial is hardly a wise move.
When brands get it right (usually thanks to some rigorous planning or at least taking a step back and having a proper think), the benefits can far outstrip the potential risks. Jimmy Choo (http://bit.ly/9pgsuy) and Debenhams’ (http://bit.ly/bLRnR) forays into new technology were exponential successes, for example. From IAMS Pet Insurance and Mars ice cream to Caterpillar shoes and watches and BMW espresso machines, those that succeed are those who have a good sense of their place in the world and a solid understanding of what they can offer by extending themselves.
Those that don’t face likely ridicule and reputational damage. Next time, Naomi, be better prepared. And drop (kick) your PRs.
Saturday 7 August 2010
Luxury brands, social networking and knowing who your friends are.
The best thing I’ve received all week is Google’s deck on ‘Real Life Social Networks’. Here if you want to see it in all its 224-slide glory (http://bit.ly/b6A03x - thanks @dorando) but I’ll do a synopsis.
The basic premise of the presentation is that the way we structure our social life on the web is totally different to (and nowhere near as complex as) how we do so offline. Online we have an amorphous group of ‘Friends’ or ‘Followers’ who we have picked up along our offline and online travels. Offline we have a series of different groups of friends (research says 6 is the average) who we have met throughout life (and through lifestages) and who we most often keep separate.
Our dialogue with each of these groups is totally different in tone and nature. It varies from the formal to the friendly to the downright childish (well, at least that’s what I’m like with my schoolfriends…). Bringing them together as one (at a wedding for example) can be stressful and slightly scary. And yet online (through facebook, twitter, linkedin and others) we usually talk to them as one.
This is a big dilemma for brands and nowhere more so than in luxury (my focus for this week). Luxury brands face many online dilemmas (transparency vs control, how luxury lives online, etc), but one of the most critical is how best to engage online customers in meaningful dialogue.
Some brands (remaining nameless) are hopeless at this but many are successful. Some go corporate (http://www.facebook.com/Tiffany?ref=ts), some take the formality of the POS experience online (www.faberge.com) and some create a much more informal environment (http://twitter.com/JimmyChooLtd).
Wherever they choose to sit on the ‘cordial-chumminess’ continuum, the brands who will succeed will be the ones who understand that the customers they are targeting online are as segmented and as complex as the ones they see day-in, day-out in-store. Ultimately they will need to create an environment and develop a dialogue which appeals to all but retains the ‘charisma', 'premiumness' and 'personal touch' of the in-store experience.
The basic premise of the presentation is that the way we structure our social life on the web is totally different to (and nowhere near as complex as) how we do so offline. Online we have an amorphous group of ‘Friends’ or ‘Followers’ who we have picked up along our offline and online travels. Offline we have a series of different groups of friends (research says 6 is the average) who we have met throughout life (and through lifestages) and who we most often keep separate.
Our dialogue with each of these groups is totally different in tone and nature. It varies from the formal to the friendly to the downright childish (well, at least that’s what I’m like with my schoolfriends…). Bringing them together as one (at a wedding for example) can be stressful and slightly scary. And yet online (through facebook, twitter, linkedin and others) we usually talk to them as one.
This is a big dilemma for brands and nowhere more so than in luxury (my focus for this week). Luxury brands face many online dilemmas (transparency vs control, how luxury lives online, etc), but one of the most critical is how best to engage online customers in meaningful dialogue.
Some brands (remaining nameless) are hopeless at this but many are successful. Some go corporate (http://www.facebook.com/Tiffany?ref=ts), some take the formality of the POS experience online (www.faberge.com) and some create a much more informal environment (http://twitter.com/JimmyChooLtd).
Wherever they choose to sit on the ‘cordial-chumminess’ continuum, the brands who will succeed will be the ones who understand that the customers they are targeting online are as segmented and as complex as the ones they see day-in, day-out in-store. Ultimately they will need to create an environment and develop a dialogue which appeals to all but retains the ‘charisma', 'premiumness' and 'personal touch' of the in-store experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)