Revolutionary Measures

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.

 

Advertisements

September 19, 2018 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a 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

Facebook, electoral manipulation and Cambridge Analytica

It’s a well-known fact that on ‘free’ social media sites, users are actually paying with their data, allowing them to be targeted with advertising that should match their preferences, and therefore be of interest. But the current revelations around Cambridge Analytica and Facebook show that the cost is potentially much greater than this, with personal data allegedly being used to microtarget and manipulate perceptions, and therefore heavily influence elections.

pexels-photo-433617.jpeg

While allegations into Cambridge Analytica’s role in the 2016 US election and Brexit referendum have been made for some time, with the company subject to multiple investigations, including the Mueller probe, what has brought it into the headlines more recently has been good, old-fashioned undercover reporting from Channel 4 News. It sent a reporter posing as a Sri Lankan businessman to find out how CA could help him influence a local election – and the results were not pretty. Even allowing for the bluster involved in pitching to a potentially lucrative client, CA’s now suspended boss Alexander Nix’s claims that he could use entrapment and bribery to bring down political opponents as well as microtargeting demonstrate a complete contempt for ethics.

The fall-out has been rapid. As a privately held company bankrolled in part by conservative hedge-fund manager Robert Mercer, CA has not suffered financially – but Facebook saw its company valuation drop by over $40 billion in the last two days, with CEO Mark Zuckerberg summoned to appear at a parliamentary committee to explain how the data of 50 million Facebook members was allegedly used (and retained) by Cambridge Analytica. At the same time the #DeleteFacebook hashtag on Twitter has been trending around the world.

Use of propaganda and half-truths to swing elections and mobilise voters is obviously nothing new, but the combination of the intimate position of social media in our lives and advances in psychological targeting mean that the majority of people are simply not equipped to understand when they are being manipulated through the likes of Facebook. And clearly the controls on the data that developers can harvest, access (and retain) are too lax to protect people.

So, I think two things need to happen. Facebook needs to put in tighter controls and make it obvious what data people are giving away when they use the service, download apps or take surveys. But more importantly for the political – and ethical – health of the population, everyone needs to be better educated about social media and online behaviour. Most of us have learnt how to pick out bias in newspapers, on TV and in the traditional media, but the personalised capabilities and echo chamber mentality of social media is something that has been thrust upon us without warning or time to adapt.

In the same way that people need to be taught to recognise fake news, they need to understand when they are being manipulated online. This should start in schools and encompass the whole population – if Mark Zuckerberg is smart he’ll attend the parliamentary committee, show that Facebook is changing and announce a global education programme on how to protect yourself on the network. Otherwise, the Cambridge Analytica story has the potential to significantly damage Facebook, hit revenues and reduce user numbers. The ball is in his court.

 

March 21, 2018 Posted by | Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Facebook, News and the impact on communications

The last year or so has seen a rude awakening for tech giants, particularly social media platforms. As they’ve risen in importance, politicians, regulators and the public have moved from seeing their benefits to seeing their downsides – from the spreading of fake news to harbouring racist/terrorist content. Ironically, for the predominantly open and left-leaning leaders of Silicon Valley firms, social media has been at the heart of the Brexit vote and the Trump election, the two biggest political upsets of recent times.

And, all the while the profits of Facebook and Google have grown sharply – it is estimated that in 2017 these two tech giants alone claimed around 80% of every new online-ad dollar in America. Calls are being made for such companies to be more tightly regulated, and to take legal responsibility for the content that they host.

512px-Mark_Zuckerberg_-_South_by_Southwest_2008_-_3

Faced with this mounting opposition and a potential drop in usage, Facebook has been making changes to its algorithms, with the aim of focusing time spent on the platform on ‘meaningful social interactions’, according to founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg. That means reducing the amount of content that people see in their News Feed from media and businesses, with the balance shifting more towards content from family and friends.

Publishers have grown to increasingly rely on Facebook for traffic to their sites, and many have already seen a drop in referrals from the social network. This has led to job cuts at many newer media outlets that have relied on social traffic (such as Buzzfeed and Mashable), as well as consternation from others worried about the impact of the changes on their revenues. Rupert Murdoch has called for Facebook to pay ‘carriage fees’ for using news from media outlets on the site, while others have demanded subscription models to support their journalism.

The key problem for publishers is that Facebook has increasingly become the place many people get their news, meaning you need to continually interest them with individual stories, rather than expecting them to buy a newspaper or browse from a news website’s home page. Many Facebook users probably couldn’t tell you who published the story they clicked on – and the same is true for other newsfeed services such as that offered on iPhones.

So publishers risk having the rug pulled out from under a major source of traffic – at the same time that Google and Facebook have hoovered up the ad revenues that previously supported their activities. While most people won’t shed that many tears at Rupert Murdoch’s power and profits reducing, there are bigger issues here around media plurality and holding people to account at all levels.

The dramatic drop in local newspapers has meant that councils are under less scrutiny from journalists than ever before, and while concerned citizens have taken over in some cases, they are less likely to be impartial or have the training to analyse and comment on complicated stories. I believe that the rise of the internet in general, and of social media in particular, has also contributed to a polarisation of views – people simply don’t see content that constructively challenges their point of view and makes them think about their beliefs. Being in a bubble makes it easy to reinforce existing beliefs and demonise the opposition, ultimately hurting democratic dialogue.

It is too easy to blame Facebook for all of these issues, but it does need to step up and take more responsibility for the consequences of its actions. That means looking at how it works with publishers, and the type of content it does carry, if it is to avoid heavier regulation and potential fines down the line. The ball is definitely in Zuckerberg’s court.

Image (CC) Brian Solis, http://www.briansolis.com / bub.blicio.us, via Wikimedia Commons

January 24, 2018 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Luther and Leave – the communication comparisons

As someone who studied history I have a tendency to take a long view of events, comparing and contrasting different eras. And, given this year marks the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, it is worth looking at any lessons that can be learnt by communicators from Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to a church door and the widespread rise of anti-establishment movements around the world.Martin_Luther,_1529

First, the political and economic context. Europe in 1517 was made up of multiple, often warring, countries, with power normally focused on a single monarch. Communication was vital to control – you had to know what was going on around your kingdom to ensure order, and larger countries relied on local lords for their support. Most people had a hard life, focused on the land and governed by harvests and the weather. There was one supranational authority, the Catholic Church, which claimed loyalty from all monarchs and their subjects. The rules it set helped ensure its power, pre-eminence and wealth, and Luther’s rebellion was very much against the more worldly behaviour of priests and religious bodies.

Probably 100 years before, Luther’s theses would not have got very far beyond the town he wrote them in. He’d have been arrested by the church, charged, executed and probably forgotten. But the invention of the printing press changed all that, allowing fast communication of his thoughts across Europe, where they could be picked up and turned into a mass movement.

Comparing then and now
Power today is a lot more decentralised, and rule by monarchs has been superseded by elected parliaments. There is a European supranational authority, the European Union, but only its most avid detractors would claim it had the same power over life, death and potential entry into Heaven as the Catholic Church. Instead of the printing press, we have the internet, and particularly social media, which is much more difficult to control, even by the networks themselves.

So, there are a lot of parallels between then and now – an angry population that feels hard done by attacks the establishment, whipped up by charismatic leaders. Both rely on the latest communications technology to sidestep official controls, spreading their message across long distances.

However, what I think is different is that Luther had a positive message that he firmly believed in – he’d been a monk, seen the church from the inside and created an alternative vision based on that. In the same way, Marx and Engels spent years studying the working conditions of the poor before drafting the Communist Manifesto. In contrast today’s populist leaders don’t seem to have a strategy beyond bringing down the old order, with policies that either pander to their followers or offer alternatives that are impossible (Vote Leave and the NHS will get an extra £350m per week) or will cause more harm than good to those that vote for them.

The lessons for communicators from both these examples are clear – if you want your message to resonate you need to have a strong presence on the latest communication channels, whether the printing press or Facebook, and more importantly you need to ensure you are seen as being in-touch with the cares and concerns of those who feel they are not being listened to. After all, the Reformation triggered bloody and sustained wars, the Inquisition and a hardening of positions that is still in evidence today in some countries. Politicians need to take that lesson on board and communicate effectively to woo the disaffected back into the mainstream if they want to remain relevant in today’s society.

December 6, 2017 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Paperchase and the Daily Mail – the Open and the Closed

Shortly after the Brexit vote I wrote a blog post looking at what the deep division between Leave and Remain meant for marketers. Brands in many markets would need to decide where they targeted their products – at an Open, outward looking audience clustered in cities or a Closed group in the rural shires and much of the Midlands and North. In many cases brands couldn’t appeal to both equally without losing their differentiating factors.

Paperchase

Image Kake via Flickr http://bit.ly/2kaMZY1

The current case of Paperchase and the Daily Mail is the perfect example of this. After deciding to run a promotion with the right wing, pro-Brexit newspaper, a Twitter backlash caused the stationery chain to apologise and commit to not advertising/working with the paper again. Is this a victory for people power, a brand that has succumbed to mob rule, or simply bad marketing? I can see four key factors in the case:

1. Know your customers
Generally, Paperchase targets a young, funky demographic – not that many of whom will be reading the Daily Mail, I suspect. Running a promotion with a publication that doesn’t serve your target audience is initially a bit baffling. However, I can only assume that Paperchase was trying to extend its reach ahead of Christmas, encouraging a non-traditional audience into its stores, with a free roll of wrapping paper. As one of the largest circulation papers in the country, with 4 million readers on a Saturday, the Daily Mail gives a huge potential reach. Once there the hope was obviously that they’d buy more – unlocking new revenues for the chain.

2. Do your crisis management early
If that was the plan then Paperchase failed to understand the depth of feeling amongst its existing customers, at least some of whom are both vehemently anti-Daily Mail and extremely vocal on social media. Led by the pressure group Stop Funding Hate, they vented their disappointment through Twitter and Facebook. This backlash led to the subsequent climbdown from the retailer.

All of this appeared to take Paperchase by surprise, which suggests they hadn’t got a crisis management plan in place, or thought through the potential negative connotations of linking to the Mail. In the end it meant that they pleased nobody – existing customers felt let down and Mail readers felt unwanted, given the decision not to target them again.

3. Be sure of your strategy
Another factor that has been mentioned is the size of the social media backlash. According to reports, around 480 people responded on Twitter, and while they may well be the tip of the iceberg, it is not a significant number, given that in today’s society consumers are much more likely to complain about brands, immediately and in detail, through social media. This means that every decision is going to receive some complaints, particularly if you are trying to extend into new audiences. The question is what additional damage has been done to the Paperchase brand by appearing to cave into pressure so quickly?

4. This isn’t about freedom of speech

Predictably many people, including the Daily Mail, have claimed the Paperchase decision, and Stop Funding Hate’s campaigns, are an attack on free speech. After all, as they point out, we live in a free society and they have every right to adopt the editorial tone that they do. Harassing advertisers into withdrawing funding therefore undermines this freedom and democracy itself. This is a disingenuous argument – I don’t agree with the Daily Mail line on pretty much everything, but agree that provided it does not break the law (including the libel laws) it should be free to publish. As long as it provides a product that people want to read, in numbers, it will be attractive to many advertisers, who believe that it provides them with the opportunity to reach a mass audience that fits their demographic. The efforts of Stop Funding Hate are not going to close down the Daily Mail overnight, so reaching for freedom of speech arguments is neither relevant or helpful.

What the whole affair shows is that unfortunately we are living in an increasingly polarised country and brands need to think hard about the audiences they want to target, and build advertising and PR campaigns that will appeal to them, if they want to drive loyalty and safeguard their reputation. For many this means making a choice between the Open and the Closed – or risking appealing to neither and essentially becoming irrelevant to all.

November 29, 2017 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

If a tree falls on Twitter……

The launch of CNN, back in 1980, ushered in the era of the 24 hour rolling news cycle. No longer did people have to wait for their morning papers or the 10pm TV news to find out what was happening in the world. And this had an impact on the news itself – rather than having to schedule events and press conferences to fit around journalists’ schedules, organisations could be confident that reporters would be available (and coverage would result) pretty much throughout the day. On the flipside unscrupulous PRs couldn’t try and sneak out bad news, knowing that it was just too late for print deadlines and would be out of date 24 hours later.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

The internet obviously accelerated the news cycle, making it even faster and more constant. You didn’t need to be watching CNN or other 24 hours news channels to see the latest stories, opening up access to everyone with a smartphone. It also allowed a wider range of media to reach people – you didn’t need to be a TV station or a major newspaper to break a story, you could be a citizen journalist or simply someone who was in the same place as a breaking news story. Essentially this democratised the reporting process. It became difficult for governments and corporations to spike negative stories as, hydra-headed, they simply popped up elsewhere.

We’re now in the midst of the next news cycle, focused on social media. As soon as something happens it is pored over on Twitter and Facebook, with both the public and experts giving their views. If previous news cycles were one reporter/media outlet to many readers or viewers this is essentially any to any – going beyond democracy to the text book definition of anarchy (‘without a ruler’).

In many ways this is a good thing, as it opens up the debate to multiple voices, many of whom have traditionally not been heard. But it drives three big issues that I believe threaten the integrity of how we get the information that shapes our world view and actions:

1. Who do you trust?
Major news organisations have a brand that their readers/viewers trust. They know what to expect when reading a story on The Sun compared to the Daily Mirror or the New York Times compared to Fox News. However, in the anarchic world of social media anyone can post ‘news’ or comments that are inaccurate or knowingly untrue. This fake news can be mischievous, misleading or designed to push a specific agenda, and is very hard to stamp out in the instant world of the internet. And the rise of fake news risks people tarring every news organisation with the same brush – we’ve all seen politicians describing as ‘fake’ stories that they simply disagree with.

2. Who shouts loudest, gets heard
Whether it is the distance that social media provides, polarisation of views or simply that the world is getting nastier, the amount of abuse and trolling on platforms such as Twitter and Facebook seems to be ever-increasing. Just this week Viscount St. Davids was found guilty of making menacing communications against Gina Miller, who led a legal challenge that forced the government to consult Parliament on Brexit. Amongst other abuse he offered £5,000 in a Facebook post to anyone that would run over Ms Miller. Parliament itself is holding a debate on the abuse suffered by MPs and candidates of both parties in the recent election campaign.

What seems to typify all of these communications is that people appear happy to say things online that they wouldn’t to someone’s face, and that very often it involves men abusing women, often in sexual terms, for daring to disagree with their views. The sheer weight of such trolling stifles honest debate and ultimately puts people off sharing their thoughts and opinions, or even self-censoring what they write.

3. Knee jerk reactions lead to instant actions
When stories break the true facts are often unclear. Whereas traditional news organisations would then take the time to research events and wouldn’t jump to conclusions the opposite is true on social media. People make immediate judgements and share them with the world, and the sheer force of tweets and messages can then shape the news agenda. A case in point is the recent disqualification of cyclist Peter Sagan from the Tour de France, for his involvement in a crash that forced Mark Cavendish out of the race. The race jury first gave him a lesser punishment, but then seemed to be swayed by the force of anti-Sagan anger on social media, changing their minds and throwing him out of the race. Taking time to study events in more detail would have led to a less knee jerk reaction, but it often feels that people believe they have to react instantly, without the full facts, leading to decisions that don’t necessarily stand up to future scrutiny.

The social media news cycle has undoubtedly delivered major benefits – it helped drive the Arab Spring for example. But its sheer anarchy means that everyone, from politicians and PRs to the general public, needs to think before they tweet if we are to have a fair, honest and unbiased discussion of news on social media.

Photo: By Tiia Monto (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons

July 12, 2017 Posted by | Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Why this won’t be the social media election

The last year saw massive political change, with an outsider elected to the White House and the Brexit vote in the UK. Social media played a huge part in both of these decisions, with Donald Trump building and communicating with his voter base using Twitter, and Facebook (and other channels) being used to spread real and fake election/referendum news.
256px-Jeremy_Corbyn

Given the impact of social media on politics, will June’s vote be the first election that relies on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to reach and convince the electorate? After all, preparation time is short before polling day, impacting on the creation and dissemination of physical materials, such as posters and leaflets, while Prime Minister Theresa May has said she won’t appear in a televised leadership debate, cutting off a popular way of connecting with voters.

However, despite the popularity of social media there are two reasons it won’t change people’s minds:

1. It is an echo chamber
Generally people follow their family and friends on social media, which leads to a self-selection of the tweets and messages that they see. As was shown by the Brexit vote, Remainers tended to see their timelines full of pro-Remain tweets, leading to a false sense of security about the overall outcome. What people like Trump have done is create a following/brand before going into politics – something that ‘normal’ politicians don’t have the luxury to do.

2. Likes don’t mean votes
Jeremy Corbyn has 841,000 followers on Twitter (double that of his party) while Theresa May has just 209,000, with the Labour leader much more active on social media. But that doesn’t translate into votes. Latest opinion polls put the Conservatives at least 20 points ahead of Labour, and while pollsters have been wrong before, the figures seem to reflect general sentiment. Additionally, social media followers may be ineligible to vote or concentrated in specific constituencies, which mean that their ability to make a difference is diminished.

Instead of focusing on how it can win elections, party PRs should instead by looking at three ways social media can help them amplify their message and meet the needs of a short, fast-paced campaign:

1. Spread the word to the committed
Following the Brexit referendum and the last general election, we’re now facing our third nationwide poll in three years. There is a danger that even the most committed voters will switch off. Social media can reach this audience and focus on the importance of them turning out on the day, or even lending their time to get more actively involved in the campaign.

2. Get news into the mainstream
Pretty much every political journalist and commentator is on social media, meaning that as a channel to reach them Twitter, in particular, is unrivalled. By using it to raise issues and highlight stories PRs will be hoping social media can move them into mainstream TV, radio and newspapers where they can affect wavering voters.

3. Use the tools
Social media provides a set of normally free, easy to use tools that are extremely powerful to any political movement looking to organise itself. While an election campaign is certainly not the Arab Spring, there are real lessons that political parties can learn here. Communicate instantly with thousands of activists through Twitter, share video and audio and use sites such as Dropbox to upload and distribute materials. These tools tend to be faster and more seamless than old style email, telephone and post – but parties must bear in mind that they are much more of a democratic channel. Anyone can share anything at any time, rather than following top-down orders. Consequently expect at least one candidate to become embroiled in a scandal about misusing social media during the election and to claim that their account was ‘hacked.’

While social media won’t win or lose the election it does change how campaigning is carried out, and provides the ability for parties and candidates to operate faster – vital in the six or so weeks until polling day. Just don’t expect it to elect the next Donald Trump…………..

April 26, 2017 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR, Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Turning an Easter egg into a marketing crisis

In today’s climate, it isn’t easy being a mainstream politician. At a time when populists are gaining ground across the world, from Spain and France to the White House, the danger is that traditional parties are seen as out of touch and unreflective of popular opinion. In the UK, the memory of the parliamentary expenses scandal, where one MP claimed for a duck house for his country estate and for having his moat cleaned, are still fresh in many people’s minds.

20110423_Easter_eggs_(3)

By Donar Reiskoffer (Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC BY 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons

No wonder that politicians think they should get themselves involved in low level debates that burnish their populist credentials. Witness David Cameron claiming to love Cornish pasties – but then being caught out when quizzed on when and where he last bought one.

Now Theresa May has got herself involved in the furore over Cadbury and the National Trust dropping the word ‘Easter’ from the title of their chocolate egg hunts. What were previously called ‘Easter Egg Trails’ at 300 National Trust properties are now being referred to as ‘Cadbury’s Great British Egg Hunt’. Interviewed by ITV News while on a trade mission to Saudi Arabia, she described the omission as “absolutely ridiculous. I don’t know what they are thinking about frankly.”

Personally what I think is ‘absolutely ridiculous’ is the current Prime Minister, who is dealing with Brexit, the biggest change in the country’s position in the world since World War II, spending her time criticising how organisations market themselves and their products. Clearly, someone in Cadbury’s marketing department has had the bright idea of trying to link to either the mood of nationalism or more likely, the Great British Bake-off, and removed the word ‘Easter’ to make space in the title. Easter is mentioned plenty of times elsewhere in promotional material for the events, so they felt that they had all their bases covered.

However, this does demonstrate the potential dangers to brands and their marketing campaigns. Thanks to social media we seem to live in a particularly touchy time, with people quick to jump to conclusions and complain, with issues snowballing as more and more people Like or Retweet them. It then becomes a story that politicians feel they have to become involved in. So what can brands do?

1          Check everything
Marketers need to balance new ideas and being creative with an eye on potential repercussions. The danger is that you worry so much about the tiniest chance of offending someone that you become too scared to actually do anything. So strike a balance – run new ideas past your wider team and test them with your target audiences before going ahead. At least that way you’ll pick up major issues before launching a campaign.

2          Be prepared
As I’ve said in previous blogs, the risk of a reputational crisis is there for every brand. Things go wrong in even the best run company due to the speed and complexity of business today. So make sure you have a crisis plan that is ready to swing into action when necessary. But don’t use a sledgehammer to crack a nut – adopt a proportional response to an issue, rather than rushing your CEO onto the Today Programme at the merest hint of trouble.

3          Be engaged and keep listening
The best way to avoid lasting damage to your brand is for it to be strong in the first place. If you don’t have a good reputation people are likely to be harsher critics when there are issues. Witness TalkTalk’s drubbing when it suffered a cyber attack – it was already seen as a company that was not particularly customer-centric, so had no real brand capital to fall back on. Cadbury is in a similar, but slightly stronger position – since it was bought by US multinational Kraft Foods and then spun off into the Mondelez confectionery conglomerate, it has been seen as ‘not really British’. Therefore it is not given the benefit of the doubt when a story like this comes up.

Personally, I think the whole Cadbury story is a storm in an Easter egg cup that will blow over and won’t either damage the brand or the number of people who turn out for the egg hunts over the holiday period. However, its prominence, and the involvement of politicians, shows that marketers need to be prepared for even the most innocuous activity to turn into a crisis overnight.

 

April 5, 2017 Posted by | Marketing, PR | , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The open and the closed – marketing post-Brexit

The Brexit vote has highlighted a deep division within English society that is likely to define and drive politics over the next decade. Essentially many traditional Labour voters in Northern/Midlands cities and Conservative supporters in the rural shires all voted to Leave. At the same time those in dynamic cities such as London, Bristol and Cambridge overwhelmingly favoured Remain, irrespective of their political allegiance.download

The result? Political chaos in both the Labour and Conservative parties as traditional voters move from defining themselves as left or right wing, to more about whether they are open or closed. This defines their complete world view. Polling by Lord Ashcroft shows that Leavers share opposition to multiculturalism, social liberalism, feminism, the green movement, the internet and capitalism. By contrast, Remainers are much more open to globalisation and immigration, which they embrace.

In many ways this isn’t unexpected. Globalisation, which has shifted jobs and people around the world, has caused major disruption, and, while it has benefited the economy as a whole, it has sidelined certain groups. All through history this sort of change leads to a fear of the new, which is manifested in religious or racist persecution as people define themselves based on the past, rather than the present or future.

What feels unique is that the two groups – open and closed – are so similar in numbers, yet completely different in their outlook. This has an impact on marketing, adding another layer of complexity to reaching and engaging with audiences. How can marketers ensure they are reaching the right target groups in a post-Brexit landscape?

Obviously certain basic items appeal equally to all consumers – there is no Leave bread, though marketers have always known you are going to sell more artisanal focaccia in Hoxton than in Sunderland. It is as you move up Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to more aspirational purchases that what will appeal to one side is likely to put off another. The open group are more likely to be sophisticated early adopters, pro-technology and renewables, while the closed group are more suspicious and needs-driven.

This has to be taken into account when you are planning your marketing strategy. Which products fit best with the open and closed personas? Geographically where should you make them available? Which celebrities should you bring on board to endorse them? Marketers are probably more likely to be Remainers than Leavers, meaning they will have to ensure that they put their feelings aside and understand their audience if they want to appeal to Brexiteers.

Just as there is no easy answer to the political chaos caused by the referendum vote, neither will marketers find it simple to define and target their audiences. Given that it will be at least two years before Brexit is completed, meeting this challenge will be central to success in our uncertain, interesting times.

July 13, 2016 Posted by | Cambridge, Creative, Marketing, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments