Posts Tagged ‘advertising’

1. Entire towns are falling off their ladders

   Published on Monday, August 30th, 2010

   It’s Safety New Zealand Week.  This morning I was reading in the Dominion Post of a renewed campaign to alert us to dangers at home. Apparently last year more than 650,000 of us were injured in the home – one every 48 seconds. Staggering!

   This afternoon ACC kicked off its campaign with a statement detailing more grim statistics. These include more than 17,000 accidents in bathrooms each year, 87 stair-related accidents every day, and 133 injuries per week to children from running through glass or falling from windows.

   Last year we paid out $622 million through our ACC levies for the treatment and rehabilitation of people injured in the home. (I love the way ACC refers to “New Zealanders” and “their” levies, as if they are from another country.)

   We’re obviously a careless bunch because in the past 12 months 5,400 people were injured using a ladder at home – that’s 15 people every day. Never mind that this equates to a significantly-sized town of ladder victims alone.

   Having Safety Week has to be a good thing, but I would like to know how we fare in relation to other OECD countries. I suspect these figures are not apparent because others don’t have such generous systems as our ACC, and they simply have to fork out for their own carelessness. Or it is just the male can-do attitude that gets us into trouble around the home and up ladders.

   I’ve seen lot of ACC television adverts over the years – people tripping over toys and the like – and sometimes I wonder whether we’ve become too self reliant on others doing our thinking for us. Perhaps this is why we are so accident prone.

   Now I’ve not been above carelessness myself over the years, with a busted elbow and compound fracture of the arm.  Discreetly I did this outside the home.

   Perhaps one answer is to have a home-accident prosecution system akin to the workplace one. 

   Other possible solutions are living away from home, having only single storey dwellings without roofs, licensing the use of ladders, or hiring an expert, which would make many of these incidents workplace claims. Just a thought.

   

2. There’s news and views. Is responding to an issue with an ad the way to go?

   Published on Thursday, August 5th, 2010

   Are big bold ads now the immediate way to address real or perceived injustices thought to have been perpetrated through the columns of newspaper?  On July 2, the New Zealand Herald ran a story stating that an investigation found a couple of eco-friendly laundry powders had high pH levels which could pose a health risk. One of these was an Ecostore product.  The very next day Ecostore ran a full page ad in the NZ Herald claiming, There’s no Dirt on our Laundry Powder.

   Advertising your side of the story in response to editorial coverage is not new, but until now it has normally been used when a publication has refused to run a ‘correction’ or adequately covered your side of the story.

   Basically Ecostore ‘s response was: yes we did have some laundry powder that was found in May to register a high pH level, but that “honest mistake” was remedied in four days. It insisted the out-of-spec powder was never unsafe, and for that reason no recall from the market was warranted, although Consumer NZ thought it should have been.

   The Newspaper Advertising Bureau thought Ecostore’s response to the Herald article was pretty cool, and awarded it “ad of the month”.  The judges commented: “The ad’s got topicality. That’s how a newspaper should be used to make a statement.”

   Putting aside the issue of how Ecostore’s agency managed to secure that much advertising space in the NZ Herald the next day (when those of us who’ve tried unsuccessfully to get recall ads placed within a couple of days), was this full page a sound strategy?

   Yes and no.  Ecostore did address the issues raised in the same paper the previous day, but not in the same medium.  And people who read news items do not always read ads, even the full page ones.

   From its point of view, Ecostore may have put the record straight. We don’t know what effort Ecostore made to redress the issues raised through the editorial columns and/or whether the NZ Herald lost interest in the issue.

   We do know Ecostore did not meet its own expectations – it made a mistake with the product specs – but they did not recall the product because it did not represent the danger alleged by Consumer NZ. When building and protecting a brand, surely product integrity is as important as disputed issues of safety.

   I’m not convinced that the ad adequately resolved the issue at hand, i.e. mistakenly high pH levels. 

   There’s news and there’s views. The ad was a view.  I’m sure Ecostore recognises that news can and does shape opinion more sustainably than views.  On this basis I would counsel an editorial response, rather than an advertising one.

   And there is also the issue of whether a precedent has been set where newspapers might deny a person the right of reply on the basis that they can ‘take out an ad if they want to correct the content or tone of coverage’!

   

3. Clear messages from the golden age of advertising

   Published on Thursday, March 4th, 2010

   If you are anywhere near the creative industries, public relations and advertising, and want a good pick-me-up, go see Art and Copy at the Documentary Film Festival.

   Yeah, it’s a review of the early American advertising industry, but there is still freshness about their thinking and their client solutions.  We learned of the irreverence these pioneers had for their clients, but also of the tremendous results that were achieved. This was the golden age of advertising, when people loved marketing and weren’t yet called ‘consumers’.

   For me, two comments had particular resonance:

   - People make advertising decisions by committee, because it avoids them taking responsibility if things go wrong (this applies equally to other industries of course); and
   - If you make a mistake, forget it and move on. You learn nothing from your failures, but lots from your success. Art & Copy featured this ad as an example.

    

   Another thing that I’ve learned about managing communications, and it was only today, from a client who was talking about preparing good briefs: the proposals that clients receive from their agencies are only as good as the brief they’ve been give. Most likely, if the ideas are crap, the brief was crap. I hasten to add that our discussion did not relate to anything that had just been proposed.

   

4. Curious questions for a new decade

   Published on Monday, January 25th, 2010

   1. Where did the man on the street go?

   Web 2.0 where? We wondered if the exuberance around the democratising power of the all-access-internet we saw mid-decade hasn’t become a bit deflated in the past year or so. Could the man on the online street have been shouted out by the noisier and better resourced?

   With a host of new web tools and loads of corporates, newsmakers, brands, politicians and NGO’s joining in the discussions, there is real concern over authenticity of content.

   We need the man on the street to speak out to ensure the balance of power remains fair.  We need genuine two-way conversations, or this fantastic medium will become another advertising forum with one-sided conversations.  Certainly the economic downturn has redirected people’s focus, but we are predicting a comeback of the everyday opinionated. And what a comeback it will be!

   2. Will the media make it? 

   Of course they will, but in what form? They have copped it with both barrels and boy it shows.  Barrel one – technological change has seen news content migrate online without a viable commercial model. Second barrel – audiences largely want their news ‘without’ advertising at a time, place and in digital format of their choice. Add in the reduced effectiveness of traditional advertising, which bankrolls most media, and ouch.

   Some outfits will no doubt falter, but by the decades end we are likely to be paying for quality news one way or another, and we won’t mind or probably even notice. Check out the New York Times who are on the brink of making it pay and they need to, because let’s face it, delivering real news real well costs a packet.

   3. Why are we more interested in the fallen mighty than the mighty issues?
    
   Despite the scary state of the world (think world peace, climate change and economic upheavals), celebrity news will always win the day.  The value in seeing the private foibles of the mighty such as our media stars, politicians, business leaders and sports stars played out in public is immense.  We think it might have something to do with the fact that it makes people feel better about their own lives, knowing that even the rich and famous don’t get it right all of the time.

   To err is human and to recover is clearly seriously divine. Unfortunately the message to the impressionable is that professional success allows for serious personal failures – providing we apologise.  All it takes for those in the public eye who have been caught out is to make a heartfelt mea culpa, fall on their sword or better still, check in to rehab, and all is forgiven – eventually.  While it might take our mind off the real issues at hand, it prompts real concerns for the impact it might have on younger generations.  Do some media not have a responsibility to truly hold these people to account in the people’s court?

   4. Is there a journalist in the house?

   The principles of the 4th estate are to hold the powerful accountable, to scrutinise and to provide transparent information on behalf of the citizenship so we can all choose how to vote, work, or shop.  This scrutiny requires experienced, thoughtful people working in an environment free of hefty commercial imperatives.  That’s a big ask given an environment where newsrooms are stretched to their limit, and media owners are screaming for more efficiencies to drive profit they now can no longer raise from advertisers.

   But never fear, journalists are a nuggety lot, and while it will take some time, we predict the next decade will see the rise and rise of the individual journalist.  Once the true value of their content is understood, and we have a workable way to pay for it, the face of news is set to change for the good.  This new breed will be real life crusaders with massive spheres of influence standing clear of news organisations to become brands in their own right, and they will cover the gamut of political viewpoints, single handed.

   5. To Blog or not to Blog?

   Our final question is an easy one really and the answer is an emphatic yes! While we may be a tiny drop in the Blog Ocean of billions, we are determined to shine in our own way.  We hope you keep following us and using your people power to ask the questions and pose new issues.

   

5. New Media gets a dose of ethics from the FTC

   Published on Monday, October 12th, 2009

   It’s fair to say that traditional media has envied the huge freedoms Internet publishers enjoy. On the Internet, any man and his dog can be publishers, editors, ad sales people – at the same time, without the “Chinese Walls” traditional media like newspapers and television are required to have, to avoid accusations of bias and advertorialising.

   Without mentioning anyone in particular, there are influential bloggers and webmasters who have felt that the rules of ethics that bind traditional media do not apply to them. With their enormous reach and clout, they have tremendous power to influence if they decide to endorse products or services, and have at time run foul of the law courts too.

   The trouble is, without transparency, such endorsements could potentially mislead readers.

   There have been some moves to voluntarily introduce for instance a Blogger’s Code of Conduct, but the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has had enough and sharpened its tone against the New Endorsers. New roles have been issued and they state quite clearly that if you have material connections with anyone whose products or services you endorse, it must be disclosed.

   Bloggers paid in any form, and this includes receiving free products or services in exchange for reviews, are said to be endorsers by the FTC. From now on, they must disclose their relationships with vendors right up front. Likewise, a firm that pays bloggers or seeks to influence editorial content by supplying material or services for free must say so up front or face legal liability.

   The FTC rules tighten up what can be said in advertising and promotions featuring consumers relating experiences, stating these have to be typical of what results consumers can generally expect.

   Likewise, research cited has to disclose any sponsorship and celebrities endorsing products and services outside traditional ads (in social media campaigns for instance) have to disclose relationships with advertisers and marketers.

   While New Zealand is yet to introduce similar, stringent rules, it should be noted that the Commerce Commission works close with the FTC. New Zealand bloggers for instance who have US audiences could face investigation by the FTC if they do not follow the new rules.

   For public relations practitioners, it’s important to note that FTC could haul not just “endorsers” but also advertisers – for example, agencies initiating social media campaigns – in front of the courts for false or unsubstantiated claims, or for simply not disclosing the connections between the parties.

   Also, saying “results may vary” is no longer a safe harbour qualification for testimonials that endorse products and services. Celebrities or personalities who take part in campaigns must disclose their relationships with advertisers.

   The rules are new and untested, but ethics behind them are clear and simple and will make life easier for all involved. Full disclosure and increased transparency strengthen relationships and trust with audiences with that in mind the FTC’s new rules are most welcome. 

   

6. Put your money where your mouth is

   Published on Thursday, May 14th, 2009

   As consumers, we are much accustomed to the use of a celebrity endorsement to sell us things.  In the early days it was athletes, war heroes pushing product, then with the advent of television in came a whole new host of celebrities paid to play as endorsers of everyday items.  It’s a simple trade really; the famous and beautiful lend their shiny allure or values to influence the purchaser to buy stuff.  The hook-up equals brand.

   Maybe it’s a recession-chic thing but increasingly ‘brand stories’ are being told by the people that work in the organisation themselves.  We’ve just seen Air New Zealand’s much-feted CEO Rob Fyfe putting his own butt on the line by getting undressed in the airline’s latest TVC.  But he was not alone, other Air New Zealand staff got naked for the cause as well.

   What about the ethical endorser?  Recently in the US, an ordinary, everyday CEO of a not-for-profit became the face of Doritos chips. Doritos are a Pepsi product and Kjerstin Erickson is the CEO of Forge, a US-based non-profit organisation that works with displaced communities in Africa. At first the marriage seems unlikely until ones thinks of the mutual benefit; the Doritos get a leg up in terms of ethical reputation and Forge gets all over the place.

   This is clever, because using a super-famous celebrity endorser can sometimes be overpowering. As lessons learned from the recent ‘Great-Free-Chicken Fiasco’ will bare witness.  Oprah Winfrey kindly treated ‘the entire internet’ to two pieces of KFC by suggesting people get on ine and download a coupon. It was mayhem. Fervent with the idea of free stuff, servers were crashed, participating stores were slammed and the end result was a near riot, as KFC was not able to deliver on the mass demand. A generous concept became a PR *fail* because the offer way outstripped the ability of the Fried Chicken seller to deliver.  Back to our stripping CEO Rob Fyfe; the trick here is to keep it simple, if the front-end makes a promise, do ensure the back-end can make good on it. Delivering on a promise has got to be the best brand story ever.

   

7. Perceptions are reality, aren’t they?

   Published on Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008

   Perceptions are reality  - that’s the long-held mantra of the advertising and communications industry.

   Why then was there such scandal when Yang Peiyi with her flawless voice got changed out of the Olympic’s opening ceremony with Lin Miaoke for her flawless image and expressions.

   I recall a furore and outrage that we had been duped by China’s Olympic organisers.

   Where did they learn such tricks? 

   From western democracies I suspect.  Look no further than Sarah Palin who is now the Republicans’ Lin Miaoke. She’s the wholesome, conservative.All-American Sarah-get your-gun poster girl for the re-election of the Republicans. Never mind her serious lack of experience.

   When communicators sense that people have stopped thinking for themselves or that the message is too complex,  there is a temptation for perceptions to get changed-out for reality. 

   Our challenge is to ensure that communications maintain substance.  This is a steep task in a world that loves the one-liner, like the one I read yesterday. In lamenting the health woes of Maori, one columnist compared their changing eating habits over 200 years as ‘the journey from kereru to KFC’. We are easily seduced by the glib.

   But that blog’s for another time.