Revolutionary Measures

Why PR is like an iceberg

It’s a well-known fact that 90% of an iceberg is below the water. PR is actually pretty similar. What is visible (often the results of tactics such as media relations) is simply the tip of a strategically planned and delivered campaign. However, what the wider world sees is the end result (or in the case of journalists the pitch or press release). I think this is one of the major reasons PR and media relations are continually confused, pigeonholing the profession.


Photo by rawpixel.com from Pexels

The latest example of this is on the BBC’s Media Show. A recent episode, entitled “The Art of Public Relations”, has drawn widespread condemnation from the PR industry for its focus on media relations and publicity, and describing PR people as bullies and liars. Clearly this is both an outdated view of the PR world, and – let’s face it – if all 70,000 of us were liars I think we’d have been closed down by now.

Media relations is a key skill for PRs, but it is one of many. And arguably it is becoming less important as PR becomes more strategic and involved in delivering corporate goals, and other communication channels such as social media give a direct route to target audiences, bypassing journalists. But it is human nature to focus on the shiny things rather than the hard work and brainpower behind them. The trouble is, this is less easy to explain in a soundbite. Perfectly valid complaints about how PR is perceived are seen as whingeing – as a profession we suffer from Cobbler’s Children syndrome, too busy working for others to do our own PR.

How can this be overcome? Here are some recommendations from my experience:

  • Keep demonstrating the value we create for companies, organisations, communities and individuals. They are the people that pay the bills, and simply wouldn’t be investing in PR if it was not important.
  • Don’t just show value to immediate contacts, but talk to senior management and build up their understanding of PR. Given most CEOs tend to come from a finance, sales or operations background they are unlikely to have learnt about PR properly on their way to the top.
  • Measure effectively what we do, and show that we are supporting corporate strategy inside and outside organisations.
  • Spend more time proactively on doing our own PR, whether that is educating people we meet (without boring them senseless!) or speaking to schools and business groups.
  • Show clients the strategy behind what we do for them, and lean more heavily on academic and business research to justify why a particular campaign is worthwhile.
  • Always be professional, and avoid the temptation to focus solely on the tactical or the Ab Fab stereotype. It won’t deliver a lasting career or client relationships.

PR does seem to be constantly striving to justify itself to the public and journalists – but over the last 20 years I have seen things change for the better. We just need to keep pushing. We’re all in it together, so do share your recommendations for how we can better get across what we do in the comments section below.

Advertisements

January 16, 2019 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

4 ways that tech giants can turn their image around in 2019

Its fair to say that tech giants had a shocker PR-wise in 2018. Vilified for how they treat consumer data, spread malicious/fake news, fail to protect privacy, low tax payments and underhand PR methods (as in the case of Facebook hiring a firm to spread dirt on George Soros), they’ve so far come up with a poor defence. In fact, senior management has either ducked out of governmental hearings or spouted platitudes that placated no-one.

Photo by freestocks.org from Pexels

And the early indications are that 2019 will be equally challenging for the likes of Facebook, Google and Amazon, as they are publicly attacked on multiple fronts. Countries such as the UK and France are proposing ‘tech taxes’ to claw back money, while competition authorities are taking a keen interest in the idea that these organisations have too much power and need to have their wings clipped. It seems a long time ago that they were hailed as innovators changing the world by connecting people in new ways and providing easy access to untold information and opportunities.

So, what should the tech giants New Year PR resolutions be? Here are four to start with:

1.Confess
One of the biggest issues facing Facebook et al is that they are taking an overly legalistic approach to dealing with their problems. Essentially, they are denying everything with the aim of protecting themselves from potentially eye-watering fines. As the growing number of legal cases show, this isn’t working as the public mood has very much turned against them. It isn’t an easy step, but they have to change their attitude, confess to past misdemeanours (even if inadvertent) and wipe the slate clean. Think Lance Armstrong on Oprah, but with Mark Zuckerberg replacing the drug-taking cyclist.

2.Match words with deeds
We’ve all seen the adverts from social networks telling us that they are committed to protecting our privacy and online lives. They need to go further, and change how they operate, such as making default privacy settings much tighter and being clearer on the code of conduct that they will follow, with proper independent oversight.

3.Be more open
Ironically for organisations that rely on people being free and open with their most personal data, Google, Facebook and Amazon are extremely secretive in many areas. Clearly, no one expects them to give away commercial advantage, but they need to show how they operate to satisfy regulators, consumers and current and potential employees. By demonstrating that openness they will show they’ve not got a secret agenda and that Mark Zuckerberg is not a lizard.

4.Invest
The rise of Google and Facebook has hoovered up huge amounts of advertising spend, particularly affecting local and regional newspapers. Alongside the reports of cats stuck up trees, these provide a powerful method of supporting local democracy, holding elected councils to account. Investigating vested interests costs money, and national newspapers have also seen budgets slashed, despite the importance of exposing malfeasance. At the same time, Amazon has led an ecommerce boom that has decimated the high street, again hitting communities across the UK. While there’s no legal obligation to pay for these problems, it is time for tech giants to dip into their pockets. Google already funds some media initiatives and Facebook invests in local journalism, but they all need to go further if this is to redress the balance. Paying a fair share of their tax bill would also help.

Clearly not every tech company is in the same position as Facebook, Google, Amazon and Uber, but the current ‘techlash’ threatens the entire industry. This isn’t just about perception or slowing user growth – share prices have fallen as nervous investors cash out, while many talented employees are looking elsewhere for their careers. 2019 promises to be a watershed year for tech’s public image – lucky that Facebook has got Nick Clegg on board to turn it all around……….

January 9, 2019 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why sales is the new opportunity for PR and communications

For many B2B industries the sales process used to be relatively straightforward. You made products customers wanted, and provided the price and quality were right, they bought them. Salespeople were involved across the process, giving ample opportunity for them to build relationships, explain benefits and overcome any doubts.

marketing woman office working

Photo by Negative Space on Pexels.com

This has now radically changed, with a much larger proportion of the process carried out by prospects themselves – without speaking to a salesperson. The combination of the internet and social media gives them access to a huge amount of information that they can use to refine their needs, and create a shortlist of potential products and vendors without the companies being involved at all.

Content, content, content
While this means that sales need to learn new skills, it also dramatically boosts the importance of content. If you don’t have the right content available, based on the keywords and topics that your potential customers are searching for, they won’t even find you. With the amount of competition out there, customers simply don’t have the time to check every potential supplier’s website to find out if they offer what they are looking for.

This applies to all sectors. For example, I’ve talked to lawyers who say clients have found them by searching for particular legal specialisms (e.g. “European rail infrastructure law”). So to get onto the shortlist, you need to be visible. And visibility isn’t just through company websites, it is in the media, on Twitter, LinkedIn, blogs, emails and marketing collateral.

What does this mean? Essentially you have to build a brand for yourself and/or your product. This has to be built on the right content, in the right places, giving a consistent message to your target markets.

For me, this is a tremendous opportunity for communications/public relations professionals. We have the skills to understand an audience, create a strategy and messages to reach them, and then execute it through relevant, well-written content. We just need to think beyond the old confines of media relations and we can position ourselves at the heart of the sales process that drives modern businesses. This means breaking down the old barriers between earned and paid media by using whichever is best for the job in hand.

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a piece on whether we should switch from calling ourselves public relations professionals and rebrand ourselves as communications professionals. It became part of a wider debate, with some people agreeing and others feeling it lost the strategic element of what we do, pigeonholing us as messengers. Given the business opening that content provides now is the time to seize the opportunity and expand what you do – whatever you call yourself.

 

October 19, 2018 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Elon Musk and brand safety – a cautionary tale

Consumers increasingly want to engage with genuine brands with a personality. And in many cases this goes back to the founder and CEO. Think of Apple and Steve Jobs, Microsoft and Bill Gates, Burt’s Bees and Burt. Or, as I heard yesterday on Radio 4, Gwyneth Paltrow and Goop.

battle black blur board game

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

In a world where consumers are bombarded with slogans from faceless corporations, having a figurehead that they can relate to should be an excellent shortcut to drive success. And, in many ways it often is. However, one of the key factors that drives people to found and grow businesses is self-belief that whatever they do is right, and that they need to battle the world to maintain their success. Add in that the more success they have, the fewer people there are around them who are willing to tell them when they are wrong and you can see a recipe for potential reputational disasters.

Elon Musk is a classic case in point. He’s built Tesla into one of the most recognised car brands on the planet, from scratch, and helped accelerate the spread of electric vehicles. Earlier in the year the company had a stock valuation of $50 billion – larger than Ford, despite its much smaller size (and profitability).

Of course, the key phrase is “had a stock valuation of $50 billion”. Musk announced in a tweet that he had the funding in place to take the company private at $420 per share. When it turned out he didn’t he was sued by both investors and regulators. A further tweet after he was fined for this saw the stock fall further, knocking $10 billion off its value. And don’t forget this is the man that called a British diver involved in the Thai cave rescue a ‘pedo’ and was recorded smoking pot on a podcast.

So how can organisations combine the creativity, drive and charisma of a founder with brand safety? There are four ways to achieve this:

1          Trust the CEO
You could, of course, just let the CEO do what they like, Richard Branson style, but that’s assuming that they understand that there are limits to their behaviour. In the case of true loose cannons (like Musk), this isn’t going to work. In the case of public companies it is also going to make the share price gyrate on a daily basis.

2          Focus on the product
A longer term strategy is to shift the focus from the founder to the product. So while the CEO might be introducing what the company makes, they are talking about what goes into it and what makes the company special, beyond their own personality. Bring in outsiders such as celebrities to subtly shift away from a single founder – a good example is the Virgin Media ads featuring Usain Bolt alongside Branson.

3          Build a team
No one person can run a multi-million pound company successfully. Leaders need help, so build a team and make sure that they are increasingly seen in the media. They are never going to have the same appeal as the founder – for example compare Tim Cook with Steve Jobs at Apple. But creating a wider team will deflect some of the attention over time and prepare for the point when the founder is no longer around.

4          Have people who can say no
Probably the hardest thing for an underling to do is to disagree with their boss, particularly if they have built the company from the ground up. Not many employees would embrace such an almost certain career-limiting move. That means telling founders that they are on the wrong track has to come from boards, independent mentors and from creating a culture where messengers are not shot, but encouraged. This is another long-term process, but one that needs to be thought of early in the process.

Balancing the marketing value of a charismatic figurehead with their wayward side is never easy – just ask Ryanair – but if brands want to stay around for the long-term they need to be ready to outlive their founder and put in place a framework and culture that turns ‘me’ into ‘we’ without losing the brand essence and magic they bring.

 

 

October 10, 2018 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, Startup | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Taking a stand – and the risks to brand reputation

Brands today face significant challenges when it comes to marketing themselves. Competition is growing, particularly from smaller, nimbler and often cooler players. We also live in an increasingly polarised world, where consumers demand that the brands they engage with stand for something. That’s relatively easy for quirky startups – the trouble for established multinationals is that ‘something’ varies radically between different groups and cuts across their existing customer demographics.

The current debate over Nike’s latest marketing campaign demonstrates this perfectly. It has recruited American footballer Colin Kaepernick to narrate its new ad, which features athletes from a range of backgrounds who have overcome adversity to achieve success. The slogan, “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything”, sums up Kaepernick’s role as leader of the movement to kneel during the US national anthem to protest against police violence.

action air balance beach

Photo by Rafael on Pexels.com

Burning rubber
Predictably, the campaign has drawn ire from both sides. Photos and videos of people burning their Nike shoes and clothes went viral on social media, and the Nike stock price initially dropped. Donald Trump complained on Twitter. The body responsible for buying uniforms for the Mississippi police force announced that it would now longer purchase Nike products. At the same time, commentators have complained that Nike is simply hijacking a key issue to essentially sell more trainers. And given their previous poor record on issues such as ethical sourcing, child labour and more recently complaints of a culture of sexual harassment, people may well have a point.

Nevertheless, Nike clearly feels that its core buyers are going to respond positively to its position. In a similar vein, the CEO of Levi’s announced a partnership with gun violence prevention groups, causing the National Rifle Association to complain about “corporate virtue-signalling.” On this side of the Atlantic, Lush had to drop a campaign focused on undercover police who infiltrated activist groups to spy on their members.

So how can brands make sure that taking a stand doesn’t alienate the people they want to appeal to? Essentially it comes down to answering four key questions:

1.Does it fit with your brand values?
One of the reasons Lush received so many complaints was that its campaign didn’t fit with its brand values. Yes, it was seen as alternative and studenty, but being seen to attack the police was a step too far. Companies need to live their brand values – but not over-extend them in pursuit of cheap headlines, as it will damage their reputation.

2. Does it fit with your target audience?
For Nike, its core audience is overwhelming young, urban and involved. Therefore, while it might lose some sales (will Donald Trump switch to Yeezys?), they are clearly confident that the positive impact outweighs the negative. In the same way, UK stationery chain Paperchase pulled promotions from the Daily Mail after its customers complained about the difference between the paper’s editorial stance and their own views. So start with demographics and listening to your customers – after all, there’s a world of social media to help you hear their voice.

3. Are you seen as genuine?
For me, this is where Nike falls down, though it isn’t as bad as Pepsi’s infamous Kendall Jenner advert. I simply can’t see them as genuinely believing in the issues raised – and their own record on worker’s rights undermines their case for promoting fairness. Obviously this is an issue for any major corporation as most have skeletons in their closet of some sort. However, in contrast, Levi’s campaign on gun control looks much more genuine as their CEO is an ex-US army captain who has spoken out on the issue before.

4. Is it cohesive?
If you take a stand, it has to run across your business. You can’t complain about police brutality and then treat your own employees poorly, for example. That’s one of the reasons that tech giants such as Facebook and Amazon are currently in trouble. They talk about an innovative future based on technology and openness, and then create labyrinthine corporate structures to minimise the tax they pay and (in the case of Amazon) face accusations of sweatshop conditions for their warehouse staff. In today’s world failing to live your brand will be quickly discovered and publicised.

We’re in a position where more and more brands are being forced to make a choice – Trump or Democrat, Leave or Remain

? To do this successfully is a balancing act – but starting from genuine brand values built on trust with your audience is a key starting point.

 

September 19, 2018 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Why the internet won’t kill traditional TV

We’ve all heard about the death of linear, traditional TV. At one end pay streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime are grabbing viewers, while at the other, more and more people (particularly the young) are getting their entertainment for free from YouTube.

night television tv video

Photo by Tookapic on Pexels.com

But is it really happening? And if it does, will it mean the inevitable decline of traditional, broadcast television and organisations such as the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5? I’d say not, based on three recent data points.

1          People are still watching live TV
Things are certainly changing, but the latest Ofcom figures show that of the 5 hours and 1 minute that the average person spends viewing audiovisual content every day, 71% of this is spent watching broadcast shows. Over half is live TV, with the remainder being recordings of programmes and broadcaster catch-up services, such as BBC iPlayer. Streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon have overtaken traditional pay-TV (Sky, Virgin Media) in terms of numbers of subscribers, but bear in mind that the cost of these services is much less. Many people have multiple subscriptions, particularly given the rise of exclusive content, such as The Crown on Netflix and The Grand Tour on Amazon Prime.

So, while broadcasters may be finding harder to fund new content, they still have a loyal viewership – even fickle 16-34 year olds spend 46% of their time viewing broadcast content. And I’d expect those figures to be affected by teenage viewing habits – previous Ofcom research found that 66% of teenagers use YouTube to watch TV programmes and films, against 38% of all adults.

2          Terrestrial TV is talked about
The rise of the internet and digitalisation has given us unparalleled choice, resulting in the fragmentation of audiences. The days of watching a programme on one of four or five channels (and I remember when there were three) because ‘there was nothing else on’ have disappeared a long time ago. While this means that people can seek out and watch content that they are interested in, it has also reduced the power of TV to bring people together as a community – you can’t go into work or school and expect that those you talk to will have watched the same programme as you.

However, I think that again this has been overplayed – at the moment all the conversations and buzz (online and offline) are around terrestrial TV programmes, from The Bodyguard and Vanity Fair, to Strictly and the Great British Bake Off. There is definitely less in the way of shared experiences, but they are still there and are still bringing people together, particularly when they use the likes of social media to involve audiences and make them feel part of a community.

3          YouTube is not yet the mainstream
Like a lot of old(er) people I rely on my kids to tell me what is happening on YouTube. Otherwise I probably wouldn’t have heard of the KSI vs Logan Paul fight that happened last month in Manchester. It was billed as the event that would demonstrate the sheer scale and reach of the site, as two of the most popular YouTubers in the world punched each other for five rounds. A lot of the stats from the fight are impressive – it generated 5 million pay-per-view buys on YouTube (including my children), bringing in an estimate revenue of £37.5 million. That makes it the fifth largest pay-per-view event in boxing history.

However, this needs to be put into context. KSI has 19 million subscribers to his YouTube channel, and Logan Paul has over 23 million. Before the fight Business Insider predicted there would be 100 million viewers. Even with allowances made for those that watched illegally, it was clearly a long way short of that. This backs up for me why a lot of teens watch YouTube – it is free, they can watch it on their phones away from their parents and it doesn’t take too long to stream each programme. Instead, the fight was the exact opposite – costing money, best watched on a TV and taking the entire evening. Essentially it shows that YouTube and broadcast TV are different and appeal to different needs.

I appreciate that the internet has transformed the TV market and that the cosy days of a limited number of broadcasters delivering programmes to grateful viewers is long gone. Action does need to be taken to ensure that we still have access to well-made, locally created content, and broadcasters need to adapt, but it is also important not to overstate the case for the internet – we’re not heading for a Netflix and YouTube only world anytime soon.

September 12, 2018 Posted by | Creative, Marketing | Leave a comment

Why you need to add emotion to your marketing

As research by the likes of Daniel Kahneman shows, humans are generally not rational. That means they’ll respond and engage more strongly on an emotional level than to plain facts.

Consequently, when it comes to marketing, emotional campaigns have greater resonance and are more profitable. Of course, that’s when they work properly – the fiasco around Pepsi’s Kendall Jenner ad shows what happens when consumers feel you are hijacking their emotions.

So how can you ensure your campaigns are emotional, but not alienating? At this week’s Cambridge Marketing Meetup Sarah Reakes and Dr Matt Higgs from Kiss Communications gave some useful hints.

Maslow

A good start is to map emotions onto Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and use this to understand which emotions work best for your brand or market. Perhaps unsurprisingly research by Kiss found that the ads that have won awards at the Cannes Lions festival since the financial crisis began were predominantly rooted in emotions such as safety and sense of belonging. In times of uncertainty safety and social needs are clearly at the forefront of everyone’s emotional requirements.

As Kiss’ presentation showed, ensuring you channel emotion successfully in your campaigns is about following a process, and I’d argue general good marketing practice. Look at your product or service through a benefit ladder with four rungs. From the bottom these are:

  • Product features
  • Product benefits
  • Emotional benefits
  • Purpose

Marketers know that simply talking about features is not going to appeal to most buyers and that you need to go up the ladder. But what is key is to add those emotional benefits – how does using your product make people feel, what deeper needs does it fulfil? This applies to both B2B and B2C marketing. For example, does your software free up people’s time so they can go home at 6pm and spend more time with their family, rather than have to stay late to wait for the computer to finish processing transactions? If it does, get that across in your marketing campaigns.

The key is to then tap into the emotional purpose of your product or company the Why? you do what you do. You can get this by talking to customers or analysing their data for trends to move yourself up the benefits ladder. In more and more competitive markets, simply competing on features leaves you open to quickly being undercut – to differentiate you need to embrace emotion across your marketing.

July 26, 2018 Posted by | Cambridge, Creative, Marketing, PR | , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Can marketing help the new NHS app to Cross the Chasm?

We’re currently in an unprecedented time when it comes to innovation. The rise of digital is unleashing new ways of working, communicating and shopping, while underpinning new business models that are transforming whole industries. Clearly, not all of this change is positive for everyone – trends such as e-commerce and AI have led to job losses and closures across the high street. Reflecting this, research shows that a majority of older people feel that life in England was better in the past, a position that correlates strongly with supporting Brexit.

black and white blackboard business chalkboard

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

What does this mean for innovation? For a start, a large number of your potential consumers are going to be suspicious of your shiny new product. Even allowing for the different phases of adoption set out by Geoffrey Moore in Crossing the Chasm, this leaves those of us marketing innovation with a dilemma. Essentially, how do you get people to change their behaviour, and do something differently – especially if it is something they’ve always done that way. This isn’t about persuading people to change the beer they drink or the shampoo they use, but much more deep-seated, such as how they communicate, or switching from fossil fuel to electric-powered vehicles.

The news that the NHS is going to get a new app brought this issue to the front of my mind. Confusingly described by health secretary Jeremy Hunt as “a birthday present from the NHS to the British people” – does he give other people presents on his birthday? – it promises to allow users to book appointments, order repeat prescriptions and view medical information held by their GPs.

But will it be adopted and therefore deliver the savings and convenience that it promises? Unlike other tech products it is aimed fully at the mainstream – and given that many of the largest users of the NHS are not likely to be early adopters – it will require a lot of effort to drive change.

Unfreeze, Move, Freeze
Essentially, according to business psychologist Kurt Lewin major change only happens when conditions are seen as sub-optimal. This generates a desire for change, which unfreezes attitudes and leads to moving to new solutions. Once this is the status quo it then freezes back into place, until the process begins again.

Looking at the NHS app, there are four areas where marketing can help drive the unfreezing and hence change:

1.Demonstrate it is easier
We’ve all been in situations where we know that changing how we do something will deliver longer term benefits – but we don’t have the time (or inclination) to invest the additional effort required to learn the new way of doing something. It could be as simple as continuing to access a website on your computer rather than your phone as you can’t remember your password and can’t be bothered to set it all up again. So the experience the new app offers has to be incredibly clear and straightforward. I’d even employ trainers to go around to GP surgeries, install it on people’s phones and get them up and running.

2. Communicate, communicate, communicate
As with any mass market product, you need to ensure that everyone is aware of the new app, and how to benefit from it. I’m sure there will be complaints of wasting money in the Tory press if the NHS runs a huge advertising campaign around the app, but it is vital to get it out there across TV, print, online and billboards. And the ads have to be memorable – even if that’s because of the sheer annoyance they cause. Meerkats anyone?

3. Brand it!
At the moment the NHS app is called, um, the NHS app. Hardly memorable or likely to help people find it – and a quick search on the Apple Store brings up lots of apps with “NHS” in the title. It needs a strong, personal and appealing brand – whether than means naming it after a famous doctor or Aneurin Bevan, architect of the NHS or going down the route of creating a cartoon character around it, it needs to stand out.

4. Make the message simple
Too many adverts overcomplicate the message – therefore the marketing for the app has to deliver a clear call to action in a short number of stages. For example:

  • One: Download the app
  • Two: Enter a unique NHS code
  • Three: Start accessing your health records/booking appointments etc

People won’t respond to anything more complicated initially – once they’ve got the app you can effectively extend their use by giving advice on other ways that they can benefit.

When it comes to changing behaviour, marketing (and understanding psychology) has a key role to play. Let’s hope the NHS bears this in mind when it fully launches its app in December.

July 4, 2018 Posted by | Creative, Marketing | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Brand safety in the age of Trump

Marketers are all aware of the impact of social media on brand reputation. Issues can quickly go viral as consumers share complaints on Facebook and Twitter – and with the press continually monitoring for social stories, before you know it you are on the BBC News or the front page of a newspaper website.

man couple people woman

Photo by Gratisography on Pexels.com

However, what has changed in the last twelve months or so has been the impact of celebrities, including Donald Trump, on brand safety. A tweet from the US President complaining about a company can damage reputation, and even survival. Take the case of Chinese telecoms equipment maker ZTE. Convicted of breaching US sanctions on Iran and North Korea, the company first looked doomed to go out of business when it was banned from buying US components, and was then resurrected through a supportive tweet from Trump.

All a bit Thameslink
It isn’t just Trump – a tweet from author Eric Van Lustbader about food poisoning at a branch of US restaurant chain Chipotle (already reeling from an e.coli outbreak), caused its stock to fall. And in the UK, rail company Thameslink was threatened with legal action from Poundland for comparing its poor service to ‘Poundland cooking chocolate’. The retailer added that it if it ever fell short on customer service, they’d describe themselves as ‘a bit Thameslink’.

What the Poundland experience shows is that brands are now fighting back against what they see as unfair attacks. Nowhere was this more visible than in the Roseanne Barr case, where the TV star blamed sleeping pill Ambien for her racist tweets. Cue its maker Sanofi to respond (brilliantly) “While all pharmaceutical treatments have side effects, racism is not a known side effect of any Sanofi medication.”

Whereas in the past they may have ignored social media mentions or only responded weeks later, brands are now wising up to the protecting their online reputation. However, I think they need to balance speed with the following three factors:

1.Be polite and engaging
It would have been very easy for multibillion dollar drug company Sanofi to respond to Roseanne with a dry legal statement or to launch an attack of its own. Instead, it balanced politeness with cutting wit, simultaneously undermining her point and demonstrating its good corporate citizenship.

2.Don’t get personal
When a celebrity, particularly one with millions of followers, tweets about you it is easy for things to descend into a personal slanging match that actually further damages your brand. Try and take the moral high ground, state the facts and think before you tweet. After all, there are likely to be brand advocates who will defend you aggressively, letting you focus on your key messages.

3.Take a joke
Brand safety isn’t about jumping on every negative, throwaway mention of your company and overreacting/threatening legal action. Decide what is important, what can be handled by a simple denial, and where it makes more sense for your brand to play along and show that you have a sense of humour.

The past few weeks have shown that marketers are now taking positive steps to protect brand reputation online – they clearly have the monitoring systems in place to intervene early, but they need to make sure they don’t become too corporate if they are to actually enhance their reputations rather than adding to online damage through ill-thought out responses.

June 6, 2018 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

World Cup marketing – is it worth it?

 

With the domestic football season nearly finished (though, as an Ipswich Town fan, it has felt over for a long time), attention is turning to the World Cup. While the hosts Russia don’t kick off the first match against Saudi Arabia until 14th June, brands are already launching their campaigns and trying to grab a piece of the action.

the-ball-stadion-football-the-pitch-47730.jpeg

Yet, they face some significant marketing challenges:

1. Location
Relations between Russia and the west are at a post-Cold War low, and there will be no high profile attendees from the UK government or royal family following the Salisbury poisoning. And, given the reputation of Russian hooligans (as seen at the last European Championships) and the vast distances involved in attending matches, only the most dedicated fans are likely to spend their cash to follow England.

2. Local colour
As several marketing gurus have pointed out, what makes a major sporting event like a World Cup is the local colour. This meant sponsors spent a great deal of time and effort linking themselves to Brazil for the Olympics/World Cup, adopting local imagery and using that to market their brands. Think shots of brands in front of palm trees, beaches or the statue of Christ the Redeemer. Given Russia’s reputation this is going to be more difficult – photos of your brand outside the Kremlin don’t have the same positive connotations. Therefore, most brands are going to focus on the football itself, which leaves them open to the vagaries of how teams actually play.

3. Competition
There are bewildering number of ways to become a sponsor involved in the World Cup. At the top end there are official FIFA partners (the likes of Visa, Hyundai, Coca-Cola and Gazprom), then World Cup sponsors and Regional partners. Each team has its own sponsors, and individual players have their own endorsements. Add in those brands that then try and sneak on board with ambush marketing, and the field looks very crowded indeed.

4. Picking the right horse
Given the costs involved it might therefore seem cost-effective to base your marketing around a particular player. But you have to be prepared if things go wrong – what happens if he fails to hit form, gets injured and doesn’t even play or is sent off? The perfect example of this was when Ireland captain Roy Keane was sent home from the 2002 World Cup after a bust-up with manager Mick McCarthy, before a ball was even kicked. Pity the Irish sponsors that had based their whole campaigns around Keane………

5. Social media makes everyone an expert
We’re all aware of media fragmentation and that the days of following a World Cup solely on TV and through daily newspapers are long gone. The internet and social media now means that everyone can share their views and comment on not just the matches, but your marketing campaigns. In our hypersensitive age, expect people to pick faults in your approach, or even to complain about any involvement in a tournament held in Putin’s Russia. All it takes is a slip of the mouse or an unfortunate turn of phrase and you’ll be facing a potential boycott – particularly if the on-field action isn’t that exciting.

After all this it would be easy to ask why sponsors bother. But the World Cup is one of the largest global sporting events, attracting millions, if not billions, of viewers. Get it right, and you’ll link yourself to sporting success, meaning you’ll be loved and admired by your audience – but remember that, as pundits frequently say, football is a funny old game………

May 16, 2018 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment