Arnold on Ethical

While the media maybe championing data as the answer to the great mystery of understanding consumer behavior, our recent survey reveals many clients think psychology offers better insight and value than data. Of course, together they make a great pair.

Since my last article ‘Are you a Metricmaniac?” we wanted to discover how data performed against psychology for predicting consumer behaviour.

Data is certainly stealing all the limelight at the moment and is now even on the agenda of company boards (so we are told by the press), while psychology seems to be forgotten.

No one doubts that data, and even big data, is a valuable source of intelligence about consumer behaviour but is it enough on it’s own? Does it really tell you how, what and why? And well enough? Does it give you the whole picture? Or is it a bit two dimensional, as some experts feel it is?

It’s great when there’s no variations, but consumers change their buying habits all the time – you only have to look at the fashion, music, film, game and many other industries we spend money on to know that we our buying habits change.

Like research groups, how well data is interpreted is critical to how effective it is, if the person analyzing makes a wrong assumption (as I’ve seen previously with research) you get a false result.

We all know that statistics can be anything but truthful. I personally don’t trust software systems to analyse data, I believe you need the human element and intuition – you can’t analyse research groups without the human input. We are in a people to people business and you can’t ever ignore the power of human insight, whatever the machine is saying.

NOT WHAT YOU EXPECT…

The survey results may not be what you expect, though predictably, the two working together makes for better consumer insight, something I think we all agree with.

To have data without psychology is to have like watching a black & white silent movie, it’s ok if you haven’t watched in colour with great sound but once you’ve discovered the bigger picture there’s no turning back.

So before you sign off half your marketing budget to analyzing all that big data, in the quest to find what makes your customer tick, you might just want to read this and embrace a different view – especially those who believe psychology is better value.

THE SURVEY RESULTS

These are the questions and answers.

 1.   When trying to understand and predict consumer behaviour, which do you think is more important.

It’s not just WHAT? we do but WHY?  Just over half opted for psychology but a quarter of all respondents commented that both were as important as each other. So in general they are seen as equal, yet you’d never guess that from press coverage and industry trends.

 2.   When creating insight into consumer behaviour, which do you think offers better value?

Again, around a quarter of all respondents commented that both were as important as each other, but just over 60% opted for psychology with 18.2% opting for data. Could this be because of the escalating costs of data collection and analytics? Of course the cost of using psychology depends on who you are using and how. Used in conjunction with research groups can be expensive, but using simple like NLP based tools like AardVarK is cheap.

3.   How important is consumer insight and consumer behaviour to your marketing?

Not surprisingly 97% thought it was – 70% thought it essential, 27% important. The 3% who opted for ‘debatable’ or ‘not important’ may well be working in industries where insight is less significant. Or cynics. The question is, do we really have enough quality and useful insight into our customers to allow us to make smarter decisions and to help us use budgets more effectively?

4.   Have you used psychology to help you understand or predict consumer behaviour?

Surprisingly 82% had and only 15% hadn’t. But then maybe this is not so surprising when you consider predicting behaviour, rather than repeat behaviour, needs a human understanding. (Or could it be that people who use psychology are more inclined to respond to surveys because they have more spare time because they don’t have all that data to analyse?)

The conclusion is that using psychology is valued greatly by marketers, a little more than data but many see the two as good partners. For predicting behaviour it out does data, but with either, and both, it all comes down to how well you understand what you are looking at.

Of course, arguably, psychology is just data in another form. What we know has been gained for thousands of years of studying human behaviour.

The most obvious financial benefit is that psychology is seen as better value.

DO WE KNOW THE BASICS?

Another study we did last year with marketers as part of WHY WOMEN SHOP ON MARS AND MEN SHOP ON VENUS project (see full results at www.venus2mars.net ) revealed that the vast majority thought we didn’t even understand the basic differences between male and female consumers and as 85% of consumer spend is by women that is one hell of a gap in our knowledge as an industry. ’86-90% thought agencies/brands didn’t understand female consumers well enough.’

This is backed up by research from companies like Nielsen, ‘91% of women think advertisers don’t understand them.’

So maybe before we start to sweat the small stuff maybe we should be getting the big stuff sorted first.

………………………………………………………………………

LINKS

SURVEY: If you want to add your voice, you can do the same survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FSGJCJX

SURVEY RESULTS – Do we really understand female consumers?

http://www.venus2mars.net/survey.pdf

WHY WOMEN SHOP ON MARS AND MEN SHOP ON VENUS

www.venus2mars.net

REFERENCE ARTICLES: Do we really get consumers? All that freshly sourced data may not be revealing as much about people as brands think. By Jonathan Akwue.

http://www.brandrepublic.com/analysis/1173334/really-consumers/

Big data without the human touch means big waste

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/1170489/Big-data-without-human-touch-means-big-waste/

Are you a Metricmaniac?

http://arnoldonethicalmarketing.brandrepublic.com/2013/02/07/are-you-a-metricmaniac/

http://tiny.cc/yl73rw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuzmpJoGycw

RECOMMENDED READING:

Recently the IPA, who have championed Behavioural Economics, had a very successful talk by Marcus Corah, author of The Persuader (how to use emotional persuasion to win more business), on NLP and it’s applications to agencies. Check out his book on Amazon.

NOTE:

Survey size was capped at 200. Number of marketers emailed with survey was 3,765.

TWITTER

#psychodata

News that the OFT (Office of Fair Trading) has finally cracked down on payday loan companies is good news for all, well unless you are a legal loan sharks making profit from exploiting the poor and vulnerable.

The consumer watchdog announcement it had discovered “widespread irresponsible lending,” how come that comes as no surprise to us all? But is the OFT’s bite as bad as their bark?

Payday loan companies have been given 12 weeks to change their business practices or risk losing their licences.

OFT chief executive’s Clive Maxwell commented: “We have found fundamental problems with the way the payday market works and widespread breaches of the law and regulations, causing misery and hardship for many borrowers. Payday lenders are earning up to half their revenue not from one-off loans, but from rolled over or refinanced deals where unexpected costs can rapidly mount up.”

Wonga is the biggest and best know payday loans company in the UK and saw it’s business triple in size, in part due to heavy TV advertising. Other brands include Speedy, PayDay UK, Donkey Loans, The Money Shop, QuickQuid, PoundstoPocket – in fact there are now 240 registered but 50 major players in the market.

Payday loans is a highly controversial business, and considered to be probably the most unethical legal business there is in the UK.  It’s been called “legal loan sharking’.  But it’s lucrative and worth over £2bn, so no surprise it attracts some dubious players.

Critics claim these companies prey upon the poor and vulnerable and exploit them by loaning money at astronomical rates – 4,214% APR in the case of Wonga, thanks to exploiting a loophole in the law.

One woman borrowed just £240 and had to pay back £1200, that was cheap! For the poorer in society it is often their desperation that leads them to go to theses companies, and because these companies are only in it for the massive profits, poor people are driven into a worse situation.

Many charities have condemned pay day loan companies, claiming they force people into further debt, and want them banned from advertising. The question many are asking is, why the government hasn’t shut them down before? Money Advice Trust (MAT) received over 20,000 complaints in 2012 with even more expected this year.

Muslims are also upset because under Sharia law you must not benefit from either lending money or receiving money from another person – meaning that interest is prohibited.

Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain said, “The idea is to protect the vulnerable and the needy from exploitation by the rich and powerful. When they are lending and are charging large amounts of interest, it means the poor will have short-term benefit from the loan but long-term difficulty in paying it back because the rate of interest is not something they can keep up with. The Islamic system is based on a non-interest-based system of transaction.” (Quote from the Independent.)

Leader of Newcastle City Council, Nick Forbes, commenting on Wonga’s sponsorship of Newcastle United football club, “I’m appalled and sickened that they would sign a deal with a legal loan shark. It’s a sad indictment of the profit-at-any-price culture at Newcastle United. We are fighting hard to tackle legal and illegal loan sharking and having a company like this on every football shirt that’s sold undermines all our work.” He has suggested that Wonga should put money into debt advice in Newcastle instead. Dream on Nick!

In their defense, you can partly blame the banks. The payday loan business grew out of a need for quick, short term loans and these were exactly what banks cut back on. If banks were more consumer friendly and less bureaucratic and cautious, payday loan companies wouldn’t exist.

The loan companies also claim that the vast majority of people are happy with their service and pay back their loans with weeks and so only pay small charges. But what about the rest? The OFT The review said: “It would appear that payday lenders’ revenues are heavily reliant on those customers who fail to repay their original loan on time.”

Wonga is the smartest of the brands when it comes to marketing (even if the ads are annoying). They are big spenders on big media (TV, posters, buses, radio, etc) while others seem to stick to PPC (expensive and doesn’t build brand).

Wonga has realised that brand building in this market is essential, and when you have a well known brand, people trust you and search for you – so the savings you can make on PPC offset the TV budget. Smart! Daily deal sites could learn a lesson from Wonga.

Recently, former Atomic Kitten star Kerry Katona (who ironically went bankrupt) caused a massive publicity backlash for appearing in a TV ad that targeting women for Cash Lady payday loans.

Few would disagree that payday loans companies represent the lowest ethical level of the financial industry, as one caller on LBC said, “It’s morally no better than exploiting kids, that’s why we banned child labour, pay day loans needs to be next.”

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), a new regulator, takes over the consumer credit market from 2014 and has committed to bringing in tighter rules on payday lending. Labour said they would consider banning them if they win the next election. With such a tidal wave of opposition to them it’s only a matter of time before they get their wings clipped.

With such a black cloud over the payday loan industry these companies will be rushing to spend their ill gotten gains on advertising to try and get a share of share of market and raise their brand before they are stamped on, so should we not have a temporary ban on all payday loan companies? If not just for the sake of the vulnerable.

Of course the other reason to ban them is because they all do such terrible ads, just look at PoundstoPockets alien ad, Wonga’s elderly bunch or PayDay UK’s bomber pilot ad with the slogan, “Don’t say mayday, say Payday UK.” I rest my case!

#paydaysharks

The new proposed EU overhaul of the way consumer data protection is regulated would rule out any contact that isn’t expressly permitted by your potential customer, which would mean an end of targeted ads of any kind – mobile, online, direct mail, telephone marketing and any other method used. Bad news for the digital and direct industry, maybe good news for big media and press who could benefit.

It will also affect analytics as it reclassify internet users’ IP addresses as ‘private information’, so marketers will only have very basic information to work with and analyse.

Profiling will also be hit as you won’t be able to target advertising at specific consumer profiles, and it prevents you gathering consumers data without their explicit permission, so making it difficult to tailor your brand experience to them personally. With limited depth of data and insight the ability to learn about consumers behavior and personalise marketing will be hit hard.

The empowerment of consumers means they can demand total lifelong deletion form databases, once gone they will be gone forever. Long term this could make databases almost impossible to build and as dead as a dodo.

Managing your databases under these new laws will be difficult and expensive. You’ll need new data systems, keep detailed compliance records and there’s going to be lots of bureaucracy. Would else would you expect fro the EU?

Which could mean brands will resort back to more traditional tried and tested mediums like outdoor and TV. Or, we’ll have to reinvent digital.

Not surprisingly, many of the trade bodies and other business groups are concerned: Direct Marketing Association (DMA), Advertising Association, Internet Advertising Bureau, Federation of Direct Marketing Associations (FEDMA), Industry Coalition for Data Protection (ICDP), The Industry Coalition for Data Protection (ICDP), Confederation of British Industry and a number of MPs have challenged and questioned the rigid nature of these proposed regulations.

Overall it sets the digital and direct marketing industry back a generation, leaving it shooting in the dark.

No one disagrees that the 1995 European Data Protection Directive (implemented into UK by 1998 Data Protection Act) needs to be updated and bought into the digital world, but the marketing industry in general is not happy about the possible damaging effects upon the industry both in terms of effectiveness and economics.

There will be groups of consumers who will applaud these new regulations, who think marketers have gone to far and have far too much access to consumer data, and especially dislike how they are tracked across the web, and the amount of data being stored on them. Seeing it as  an end to the ‘Big Brother Big Data Society’.

On one level we could blame ourselves for feeding like hyenas on consumer data and taking too much advantage of digital technology. And for excessive junk advertising at consumers.

As we move to using our smart phones, more than our PCs, there’s a big debate about how long will it take before the ads become too intrusive as every brand plans a mass assault on consumers believing the mobile phone is the new marketing playground. Few brands ask if the consumer want to be bombarded with targeted messages, vouchers, offers and the like. But these new rules could put an end to all this.

The question is, does the marketing industry have a bigger right to sell to consumers or consumers a bigger right not to be sold to?

If marketing was moderated more, consumers would appreciate it more, but once a channel is opened you don’t get a trickle of messages but a tsunami.

Look at direct mail, the financial institutes trashed the medium with their endless piles of junk mail until the web came along and offered them the chance to create junk digital ads for less. Now direct mail is seen as a quality medium again.

MPS and TPS has shown that the majority of the public, when given a choice, prefer not to get unsolicited marketing materials. Even if we do like offers, the onslaught of marketing material is not popular. The excessive amount marketing material on Hotmail drove a generation onto Facebook, Twitter and BBM.

Ad blocking software like Mozilla’s AdBlockerPlus is very popular and growing, even being in advertising I have installed it on all my systems to keep the ads away.

Of course those that like to ignore regulations will carry on anyway, so the less moral and the criminal elements will carry on unabaited.

The DMA is currently championing the marketing industry’s cause and are encouraging everyone to lobby their MPs to make these new regulations less restrictive and less damaging. They certainly have  a case, the regs are fat to dragonian.

DMA research shows that complying with the proposed regulation could cost companies an average of £76,000 each. It estimates a total loss to UK industry of up to £47 billion in lost sale – not good for an industry already under pressure.

Even MPs are concern.

Culture Minister, Ed Vaizey: ?“Britain’s creative industries and the strength of its online economy are the envy of Europe. This Regulation puts at risk the innovation which drives online business and creative content and it’s particularly important for the UK that we address this. We must find a way to protect consumers that doesn’t undermine some of our most valuable sectors.”

Justice Minister, Helen Grant: ?“As technology advances, data protection rules must keep up but European legislators must balance these new rules against the risk of undermining UK businesses in the process. Governments, regulators and industry should be co-operating on proportionate rules to reassure and protect consumers.”

Matthew Fell, CBI Director for Competitive Markets: ?“In an increasingly digital age, it is important that consumers and employees are confident of their data protection rights, and this is also in businesses’ interests. However, at a time when we should be boosting business confidence and encouraging innovation in digital services, these proposals will interfere with the relationship between businesses and their customers, and only add to costs”.

If you want to read more, follow these links.

To find out more visit the DMA’s website:

http://dma.org.uk/eu-data-protection

To lobby your MP visit

http://dma.org.uk/eu-data-protection/act-now-write-your-mep

…………………………………………………………………

Last week, Unilever’s chief marketing & communications officer, Keith Weed, identifying the potential of mobile for marketers at the Mobile World Congress. Mobile is certainly an important additional tool in the marketing tool box but it presents brands with a number of challenges. Full of promises and as seductive as the pitch sounds, most people are ignoring the elephants in the room and basing far too much on assumptions.

Elephant 1 – Do people actually want to connect with brands? Especially domestic ones like Unilever’s portfolio – a mayonnaise, deodorant, soap, shampoo, spreads, sauces, margarine, yoghurt, ice cream, tea, petroleum jelly, toilet cleaner and hair gel? Nothing there that really excite you.

15 seconds of fame

Andy Warhol said, “everyone should have 15 minutes of fame”, for brands the best most can hope for is 15 seconds. Unilever is no longer just in competition with P&G but thousand of brands and millions of items of content on the web. We only have so much time we can connect with brands. The challenge that every marketer should be asking is how can I win (or earn) 15 seconds of engagement in the lives of time poor consumers?

The average person deals with 250 brands a week (go through your cupboards, wardrobe, draws, shelves and and start counting them), your larger portfolio is nearer 500. If you decided to have a marketing relationship with just 1% you’d still have to find time to fit that in between Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, the drama society, your football club, dancing cats on YouTube, Ebay, news, text messages, loads of apps…. and the rest. We are already time poor so the biggest challenge to brands is winning time, it’s just assumed that using data and pushing out stuff works.

Whatever channel you are looking at, simply redefine your brief’s goal to, ”how can we win time?”

Elephant 2 – Content is king.

Can you be the best, the very best? It’s like writing a hit TV series, movie, game or single, for every one that makes it, thousands fail. Can brands really create content so good people want it? Especially when others are doing it so well without the bureaucracy, paranoia of the legal and PR departments and politics big brands face internally.

When TV first launched, big brands, like Unilever, championed content  (everything goes in cycles). The outcome was them pouring millions into TV programmes, which gave birth to the ‘soap opera’. Finally brands admitted they weren’t the best at doing it and left it to the TV companies and bought ads in the breaks instead, which actually was cheaper and worked better. Now we also have sponsorship bumpers and product placement to add to the TV list.

Dave Trott, at the Vision conference, pointed out that on TV you only have to compete against 5 brands in a break, online and on mobiles you are competing against millions. TV and outdoor (Big Media) still kicks butt like no other media to get reach and build brand awareness, and for decades it has worked as a marketing tool.

Brands are no longer competing against other brands but competing against our time and thousands, even millions, of options.

Even if you can afford to hire the best people to create amazing content (and that’s expensive) some kid with a $600 laptop and a film of his dancing hamster singer to Justin Bieber will be far more popular. Or a student juggling while he solves a Rubik Cube in less than 2 minutes (http://uk.games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/student-simultaneously-juggles-solves-rubik-cube-004651627.html )

Elephant 3 –  Using big data means you can target people effectively. Yep you can, but do they want to be? And given concerns in the EU, and potential new privacy laws (TPS for data) will you be able to soon anyway?

I agree that as consumers I should have the right to decide to connect with who I want not be a victim of some marketing department. TPS,  MPS and Tivo  have proven that consumers prefer not to bombarded with sales messages.

Keith points out that data means you know someone is in a park, it’s hot and the nearest CTN is 5 mins away, so you send them a voucher for 10p off Magnum.

You end up talking to maybe 20 people in a park, is that effective use of your budget? Sure you can programme that but you’re going to get charged a lot by agencies to set up all the options, create the vouchers, the interface…suddenly those 25 people are costing you £10 a head, and if only one buys an ice cream you’ve lost £240.60p (if profit on a Magnum is 40p). Take a lesson from the telephone sales industry, you can call anyone in the UK just by pressing 11 digits, but in reality it costs a bomb.

The trouble with data is, are you really the only brand that has access to it? Ping, poor consumer trying to read his book (on her Kindle) in the park and gets 14 messages on their phone from 14 different brands all trying to sell, each with a voucher. Outcome? Consumer presses the STOP option or turns off phone. Other outcome, you are now a brand that irritates her and invades her private space.

Elephant 4 – Digital is all about promotions and content. Wrong! If you aren’t marketing your brand, then given all the data you have, consumers just won’t respond if they don’t know, trust or relate to you. Brand is still core to all marketing, because consumer always have a choice, so you need to invest in that first, making digital a follow through. Plus, get your brand right and you’ll create a powerful emotional bond (read Love Brands).

Elephant 5 – Mobile is changing much of our behavior. Actually it’s enhancing it, technology allows us to do what we want to do and to excess. The fundamental rule of successful technology is, “If it fits a human need it wins, if it doesn’t, it fails.” I(Check out What if the Romans had Invented the Internet on Canvas 8 – http://www.canvas8.com/public/2011/03/01/if-the-romans-built-the-internet.html )

Mobile allows us to chat, gossip, read, investigate, catch up, shop, seek entertainment (4G will improve that) and the rest. Most of all, it fills the boring gaps in our lives, like waiting for a bus. The number one thing people actually do with it is read.

It wasn’t the telephone that created a mobile society but the First World War and the growth of public transport (read Coming up for Air by George Orwell). It delivered the ability for people to do what they needed to do – explore, travel, gain new experiences, and get away from the relatives!

We can all agree that the mobile is replacing the PC (though don’t forget that tablets are also significant), and that we now live in a 24/7 on society. But the question is, do brands have the budgets to be 24/7? And do we want them popping up on our phones 24/7?

Elephant 6 – 360 isn’t important anymore. Wow, that’s really throwing the baby out with bathwater. How many brands declared that old media was dead, jumped on the digital bandwagon and are now back on TV? Loads. Big Media isn’t in decline, it’s still as relevant a part of mix as all the other channels we can use, and given it’s ability to connect through to digital, is even more powerful than before. Each channel has its role and it’s value, the mix is still critical. There is no channel fits all.

The next big thing?

As tempting as it is to jump on whatever bandwagon is the fad of the moment (remember the trend for podcasts?), if you want to be a successful marketer you need to focus on the mix and getting the balance between different marketing disciplines and channels right.

Mobile allows us potentially another way to connect but it’s a bigger challenge to use, especially as no one wants to ask the question, “does the consumer even want me invading their personal space?” Or the bigger question, “will EU regulations in the near future let me connect?”

Often the agencies role is to question and challenge, to have their feet on the ground and evaluate what works against what promises to work.  Mobile is still at the stage of a biplane in its evolution, with enormous potential. The question will be, is there space for brands to be in that space?

Or maybe a bigger question, do we need to create a whole new type of advertising that rewrites the rules? Already apps are redefining how we sell (see The Grocer this week). After all, everything we are doing on digital is essentially the same as we did before, it just looks a little different.

…………………………………………………………………………….

LINKS

Marketing – article on Weed’s comments

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/sectors/fmcg/article/1172328/Unilevers-Keith-Weed-four-steps-connecting-mobile-world/

#mobileelephant

Today is the first day of Fairtrade Fortnight, it’s a nice literation, but given the success of Fairtrade – sales have risen last year by over 19% to £694m –  do they really need two weeks of promotion any more?

Well it seems the battle is not won, despite producing 70% of the world’s food, over half of the world’s hungriest people are smallholder farmers, so the Fairtrade Foundation are calling on David Cameron to champion a better deal at this year’s G8 conference.

Year on year, Fairtrade has been growing, in part from more and more consumers adopting more ethical buying habits and because many big brands  are adopting it.  Plus supermarkets selling FT at an honest price, instead of ripping consumers off with inflated prices as they use to do. Note the key driver is fair trade for people not environmentalism, when it comes to conscientious consumers, people are more important than the planet.

Cadbury’s (Kraft), KitKat (Nestle), Maltesers (Mars), Ben & Jerry’s (Unilever) and Tate & Lyle have all helped boost FT’s sales, but it does beg the question, “is the consumer buying a Fairtrade KitKat or just a KitKat that’s now Fairtrade?”

Confectionary has been one of the biggest growth areas, the other big growth area is own label, an area the Co-operative is big on. Tesco’s have joined the bandwagon with a growing range of FT products from green beans to school uniforms. What once was a niche area is now becoming mainstream, bit like ‘free range’ has.

Retailers, especially the Co-operative, Sainsbury’s and Waitrose have strongly supported FT for years, with Sainsbury’s now selling almost £215m worth of FT a year. Asda, by contrast, under trades and claims that FT is declining in their stores whilst local is rising. This I suspect is where the class difference comes in, middle class consumers like Fairtrade (along with organics), while working class consumers are more community minded so prefer local. Though Asda still sells over £50m of FT products.

Nearly 94% of the 22 millions UK households claim they have bought FT, I’m not sure I believe that but suspect it’s a classic ‘sounds like a good answer to give’ to someone asking that question. Many years ago when I worked with Traidcraft 74% of people said they bought FT but only 14% actually did.

Fairtrade has successfully extended its reach beyond food and drink into clothing, toiletries and now even condoms – Four Squared are available in the Co-operative and many other outlets.

Of course Fairtrade Fortnight wouldn’t be a celebration without some good PR gimmicks – the Co-op have a car powered by coffee, the invention of Martin Bacon. Ummm? But it has made it into the Guinness Book of Records.

Sadly FT’s new campaign video hasn’t been posted up yet, so I can’t comment on that.

They have launched ‘Marchers’, sort of box people (by Foldable.Me) who are like an avatar who virtually march. Once signed up your marcher becomes part of an event during Fairtrade Fortnight to let even more people know about their petition to the government to support smallholder farmers.  About 10 years ago I proposed setting up the first virtual march for students – millions of avatars in the streets of Westminster -  but sadly it was too ahead of the technology curve. Students loved the idea – protesting without leaving their digs.

I do feel that the Fairtrade Foundation needs a harder hitting ad campaign, social media campaigns are fun but not heavy weight enough to lead a change or to influence politicians. And tougher PR. But they are not alone, the recent Soil Association organics campaign was limp at best.

There’s no doubt that Fairtrade is the most successful and most recogonised ethical labeling scheme of all time. It is also the label that commands the greatest response from consumers, more so than Organic or the Rainforest Alliance (though their campaign ‘Follow the Frog’ is far better than anything the Fairtrade Foundation has ever done).

Personally I find it amazing that many good causes have a week, Fairtrade two weeks, but the one thing that could change the whole world -  love  – has just one dedicated day a year!

You can find out more about getting involved at: http://www.fairtrade.org.uk

See also Traidcraft: http://www.traidcraft.co.uk

A recent report says that the West End is now one of the most expensive places to set up a business. Add to that the fact London has one of the most expensive travel costs, plus housing costs and you have to wonder how anyone can afford to live and work in London anymore.

For many grads, living at home is the only option, the trouble is, many parents moved out to the suburbs so now their off spring face massive travel costs to get into London. With many internships unpaid, it’s almost too expensive to take one just because of travel costs alone. Catch 22.

I have friends who have moved out of London and claim to have a better work life balance as well as a better bank balances.

Buying a flat may not be a high priority for a grad but sooner or later they will want to and London is just simply too expensive – you’ll need £100k just as a deposit. And even though there are some schemes to try and reduce the cost, most are fraught with conditions, catches or simply offering duff property.

If you want to own property, London isn’t the place to be. By contrast, my brother lives in Manchester, his house (the same size as mine) cost half the price. He earns about the same as my London wage, so has more disposable income, so gets to go on more holidays, eats out more and can afford the latest gadgets and a very nice car. So what is the attraction of London?

Despite claims that the current generation of grads are work shy, over  expectant and job snobs – note Iain Duncan Smith’s comment about shelf stacking – like most of us, they will eventually want to settle down and have a family and a decent balance of work and life. It’s just human nature (not that at 25 you believe you’ll one day be mowing a suburban lawn, wearing slacks and  a brown cardigan).

While adland may be stuck in London, digital is well spread across the UK, with Bristol being one of the hottest creative spots outside London. So already London is no longer the creative capital.

Be honest, outside of working for one of the few really creative companies, life outside the capital is probably a lot better. Let’s take a reality check here, most agencies bread and butter is in dull, uninspiring, knock it out and keep the client happy work – “churn & earn” – as it’s known. So why live on nothing in London when you can live outside?

And salaries are not always better in London either. Some people I know are now earning more outside as they are seen as a valuable resource.

We are yet to see how hard the economics of London life will effect the workplace, but I bet it will. And in time that might mean adland has to try harder to recruit new talent or face a hard fact that organisations like the BBC have had to face, it’s time to move out of London.

Already we’ve seen a talent drain to technology based creative industries such as gaming, where you can be very creative and well paid. Advertising isn’t top of a lot of creatives list any more. End of last year I attended a meeting with other industry creative directors to discuss how we can attract more talent.

If Mother, W&K, Fallon or Droga 5 set up in Manchester, Birmingham or Liverpool (all cities with great facilities and a great night life), I bet they’d have even more applicants than they do, because they’d still be doing great work, and you’d be able to live in a decent house, not in a small flat, and you could drive to work in a nice car, rather than spend 25% of you income on an overcrowded, dirty transport system.

Throughout history, economics, more so than social trends, has dictated change. So unless something radical happens, adland could soon find itself moving out to pastures new

Data can easily become an addiction and so often, like a lamp post, rather then be illuminating it just becomes a prop, used to justify rather than inform. And after a while you want more and more of it until you finally become OCD (Obsessed with Collecting Data).

I am not the only one to raise the debate about data and how well it is used, Eric Ries, creator of the Lean Startup Movement and a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, has a name for the obsessive use of data just to look good, he calls it ‘Vanity Data‘. I call it Metricmania.

He’s not afraid to attack the scared cow of website hits and social media numbers. Some simple say he’s just pointing out the king is naked, something a growing number of marketers, cynical about our over belief in the power of digital to sell, will be pleased to hear. It’s time to rebalance things, and get things in perspective.

Big data, big headache

The trouble with big data, there is just too much to really get you head around and it’s easy to end up with paralysis through analysis. It’s no wonder clients are complaining about data overload and the costs involved in making any sense of it.

A recent research report I read claims clients are become more sceptical about metrics and are drifting away from models like econometrics, looking instead for alternative methods, psychology being one that actually gives you answer to the WHY and WHAT happens next?

But the real question is, does data really tell you what you need to know to dramatically improve your marketing, or are you spending 80% of your resource on just 20% of significance.

I suspect many clients are too busy worry about the data when it’s the basic they need to be looking at. For all the data you can analyse about digital ads (display not search) the one thing that will give you that 80% difference doesn’t sit in the data but in creativity. The most significant factor in effectiveness in digital ads is how good the creative is, the rest is just about rearranging the chairs. It’s obvious really, because that’s the bit that does the work of engaging the consumer.

You can write the worlds best joke but it takes a great comedian to make it funny.

“Facebook is a dinosaur”

Having just been speaking at the Inside the Creative Industries conference at Chester University, digital, data and new trends were the top subjects of debate. This is an area where you quickly discover people have strong belief systems and, like football fans, are totally evangelistic about what they believe.

One fan of Twitter declared it was the “greatest marketing invention of all time and Facebook was now a dinosaur.” No one doubts it’s a great tool to have in the marketing tool box for some brands, but the greatest marketing invention of all time?Well, it’s marketing so expect hype and over sell.

Why?

With data popping out of our ears no one is really questioning how good is the evaluation and what is it really telling us. More importantly, does it really help us understand the consumer? Theres a lot if talk about consumer behaviour, but even though looking at behaviour tells us WHAT people have repetitively done, do we know the WHY? More importantly, do we know WHAT they will do next? Especially if we change the situation, or something unpredictable happens, as us so often the case in markets.

If you’ve ever been to a fortune teller there’s nothing that leaves you feeling cheated than just being told your life history, you already know that. What you are paying for is to know the unpredictable – the future.

Of course data can predict the future if all things remain equal, I know my neighbour leaves his house at 7.30 everyday, so I can predict that next Tuesday he’ll do the sales. Unless he’s ill, or there’s a tube strike or he gets fired. Now how do you predict what happens next?

Observational data can tell us how many people are in the room, how they got here, how long they stay there and what they are doing. But what happens if a tiger walks into the room? Suddenly data can’t help.

Yet in the real world the unpredictable happens all the time, so we need less reflective information and more predictive. This is why psychology is coming back into play, because psychology not only tells you WHAT people will do (panic and run like hell), but also WHY they were there in the first place, WHAT are their motivations are… and HOW they feel bout tigers.

Open minds.

Being up at Chester University I was also asked to do a short talk about my favourite subject at the the moment, using psychology in marketing. About how to use NLP (AardVarK), which most sales people are training in these days. Enneagrams, which go back to Greek times and explain our emotional drivers (Emotivations) and the simplest tool in the box, the R&E Line which helps you map out the purchasing journey and explains the roles and relationship of creativity and information.

Armed with open minds, the students have no attachment to belief systems, current trends or are pressured to conform, they can see the logic of why psychology is a smarter way forward in a data overloaded environment.

Looking forward, businesses need to take a pragmatic approach and evaluate the value of what they pay for and ask the simple question, ‘does it deliver against real marketing objectives like sales, brand awareness or WOM’. I known we live in what has been called the ‘Numeric Society‘, But just using numbers to justify what you are doing to create a comfort zone is plain metricmania.

links: Psychology in marketing:

http://tiny.cc/yl73rw

Recommended reading:

The Persuader: how to use emotional persuasion to win more business (Marcus Corah)

Who is responsible for the values of our society? For teaching us what matters, what is right and wrong and the degrees between?

In the UK we have lost religion, and with it, a way of instilling values upon society. More people go to O’Neill’s pub in Muswell Hill than went to the same building when it was a church. So who can fill the gap?

Certainly not politicians or newspapers – look at the way they behave. Even the BBC is been questioned about its moral values. And as for celebrities… God help us – drugs, drink, sex! So who can we look to to guide the next generation?

The answer may well lie in brands. Our relationship with brands can be more influential than our parents as those relationships reflect our own values. Just consider the difference between someone who shops at Primark vs the Co-op. Or Coutts bank vs Triodos bank. A Prius driver vs a Hummer driver. The brands we engage with therefore can also influence us and reshape our values, in the same way as our friends can, because we connect with them.

When M&S launched Plan B it sent a big message to its customers, ethics matter. When you buy a KIA car you get a free bike and they also support Walk to School Week. Through these simple actions they are sending a strong environmental message to their customer. If IKEA were to instigate a ‘new use for old furniture’ campaign it sends a message to its customers – recycling matters. When Starbucks started selling real Fairtrade coffee a decade ago they made a statement to their loyal fans that paying farmers a fair wage matters.

These messages may sometime be directed directly at their consumers, or subtle, but once a brand like Body Shop draws you in the influence is very powerful.

And in the current market, brands with values gives you a competitive advantage because consumers are looking more and more at the values and ethos of brands. Very few consumer want to deal with unethical brands and prefer brands that reflect their values, both emotionally and visibly.

By contrast, the fact Starbucks isn’t paying UK tax goes against their ethics and leaves the consumer shocked and disappointed. How can a brand that says it cares about people also be as greedy as a banker? Now your consumer is confused. It’s a good lesson in why you should never let accountants run your business, they don’t have the right values!

For decades family and religion has played a critical role in maintaining social values. But like so many things, times move on.

The typical middle England, middle aged, middle class Daily Mail reader will blame the digital world for the decline of the real world. Sex, war games the new C.O.D. (sold 8 million copies in just 24 hours), gambling, even exploitative pay day loans – you can understand why some may see it as a devil’s playground.

There’s certainly a fair debate to be had about how much good vs bad influence the internet has had upon modern society. But we should remember that TV and rock n roll were also once seen as corrupting youth and societies values. Before that, books and coffee houses.

Values tend to influence attitudes and our behavior. What we do is linked to what we believe. According to the sociologist, Morris Massey, our core values are formed during three significant periods of growing up:

1. The Imprint period is from birth to 7 years, when we are absorbing everything around us and accepting much of it as true, especially when it comes from our parents who are our greatest influence. This is the time we learn a sense of what is right and wrong. This is when boundaries are first set.

2. The Modelling period is from 8 –13 years, when we copy people, often our parents, but also other people like teachers or are influenced by religion. We start to question rather than believe everything as true.

3. The Socialisation period from 13 –21 years. These are the years when we are most influenced by our peers and follow social norms. Sadly, we are also influenced by celebrities and the media (fashion and trends). It is a time when kids are seeking identity as a way to define themselves. Ironically, they think they are rebelling, challenging the system and authority, when they are actually conforming to a new peer group.

Beyond 21 we have a mind of our own, we literally grow up and start to settle down. But our influences become more varied, driven by social, business, sexual, fashion, ambition, activities, media, technology, social status, life stages and even spiritual beliefs. And with the growth of social media, we are under pressure to confirm more to the social norms of the groups we align with. Trouble is, most of us have aligned to a lot more than one tribe.

The values of a society can often be identified by noting which people receive honor, respect or financial reward. Based on that, musicians, actors and athletes are doing pretty well in Western society. The fact some bankers earn more than many celebrities also says a lot.

But here is a haunting thought. CONTINUUM, a new science fiction series from NBC, is about a world where governments have been replaced by corporations. In this world the corruption of greed turns them into dictators and society into a 1984 environment. The last straw is when the corporations decide to execute those that stand in their way and … the rest can be found on the SyFy channel.

On one level, brands that champion moral and ethical values and show leadership – like many Quaker companies did – are to be praised. But those that give into greed, corruption and abuse set a bad example. Which is why CEOs of big brands need to evaluate the real power of their brand to have a positive influence and make a positive change for the better in society.

In a world intoxicated by digital technology and marketing gimmicks, many companies have let their brands slip because when you are distracted  it is easy to forget that the core values of your brand can make  a bigger difference than anything else.

I was shocked to hear a radio ad warning people of the dangers of driving in Spain, a country that is very safe compared to many others. Not because of the claimed dangers of criminals targeting tourists, which happens everywhere, but because it was an over reaction and one that could damage Spain’s image.

The ad pointed out that there are gangs who target tourists (some dressed as policemen) and con them with on the spot fines or rob them. Highway robbery goes on in almost all countries, including the UK, it’s nothing new. The ad could have been for almost any country in Europe or Eastern Europe.

The fact it was broadcast on the radio, with no consideration for the damage it could do to Spain’s image, I thought was totally irresponsible. What were the British Embassy thinking?

There are many ways to contact travellers directly (have they heard of the web?) rather than broadcasting a scaremongering ad that brands Spain as a “dangerous place to drive”. Why not scare off the tourists when Spain needs them most? Seems they didn’t get very good media planning advice.

Ads on TV, outdoor or the radio can be very powerful, these mediums are the most influential, and can leave a long term impression, one that can take a generation to shake off.

I travel to Spain 4 times a year and drive a lot there, but so far had no incidents or met anyone who has, because it actually affects very few people. You stand far more chance of getting robbed in a train station, on the beach or out at night.

The worse reported road is the AP7 motorway between the France and the Alicante region. About 140 cases of robbery were reported last year (that’s almost 3 a week). Bad, but hardly a crime epidemic (compared to many other incidents) that warrants a taxpayer funded ad campaign.

Motorists can download guidance on avoiding the ‘highway pirates’ from the UKinSpain travel advice webpage. The site highlights how a couple had their bag snatched from their car at a service station as they were fiddling in the boot – well that can happen anywhere. I wouldn’t leave a bag in a locked car in London and not expect to have it nicked.

Spain, which is actually one of the safest places in Europe, isn’t the only place warnings have been issued, the British Embassy in Latin America have posted a warning video on YouTube about bogus taxis robbing tourists in Bolivia.

If I was the Spanish I’d be warning their country men of the dangers of visiting London – robbery, assault, rape, murder – it all happens here! If they did, I bet our national papers and the government would be protesting very loudly.

He’s been around for over 60 years selling one of Kellogg’s classic brands but times have changed and Frosties hasn’t.  With such a high sugar level, 37%, it has become unacceptable as a breakfast cereal for families and a target for campaigners against sugary foods.

Tony the Tiger was born in 1951, the creation of Eugene Kolkey, an Art Director at Leo Burnett (USA). He sketched a character for a contest to become the official mascot of Kellogg’s new breakfast cereal. Kolkey designed a tiger which he named Tony (after an ad man at Leo Burnett – Raymond Anthony Wells). But it was illustrator Martin Provensen who turned the sketch into what has become one of advertising’s oldest and best loved icons. He wasn’t the only cartoon tiger to be a brand icon, Esso adopted one in 1959 with their advertising campaign, “Put a Tiger in Your Tank”.

As the war on obesity progresses forward, it is not the first or the last big brand to become a victim of ethical consumerism and a desire for healthier alternatives.

One of the first was Sunny Delight, which turned out to be less than delightful. In 1998 it had sales of £160m pa and was the 12^th best selling grocery product. It’s marketing set out to deceive consumers and make it appear to be a healthy fruit juice – it was even sold in cooler cabinets to keep up the pretence. But 3 years later, when it was revealed it was just 5% fruit juice and the rest water and sugar, sales halved – a loss of £80m. Having lost trust with consumers, it then just went into decline.

The BBC’s Money Programme said it was, “A story of corporate power and consumer triumph, and of a manufacturing giant which has had to come to terms with a new world in which the consumer is increasingly wary and powerful.”

IN 2009 Vitaminwater ads were banned by the ASA because of health claims. The ASA said that the drinks contained nearly a quarter of the recommended daily amount of sugar in 500ml (4.6 g of sugar per 100ml) but the publicity made it likely that consumers would think the products were “healthy”. Just 2 years later it received another ban by the ASA, ”We considered that they would not expect a “nutritious” drink to have the equivalent of five teaspoons of added sugar. “

Andy Burnham, shadow health secretary, said cereals like Frosties and Sugar Puffs should be banned as part of the Britain’s battle against growing obesity levels.

Volume sales of Frosties dropped 18.3% for the year ending in October, while value sales slumped 6.6 % to £29 million. Kellogg’s haven’t advertised the brand since 2010.

By contrast, Special K has undergone a recipe change and new pack design in an attempt to reverse flagging sales (sales have fallen 15.1% to £103.5m from 2011 to  2012). The brand will still target women and focus on weight management, backed by a £5m TV campaign. Last year its TV ad was banned by the ASA for claims about low calories.

Of course no one at Kellogg’s can say they didn’t see this coming, back in 2004 Brand Republic reported that sales were declining and Tony was fast becoming an endangered species with a year on year decline of 13%. The MP Debra Shipley and the Consumers’ Association were waging war on high fat, high sugar brands and labeled it as ‘one of the worst offenders’ in its report on cereals.

Kellogg’s tried to position Tony as a sports trainer in one TV ad, suggesting it could be an energy food with the slogan, “Train hard, eat right and earn your stripes”. It didn’t wash and just attracted more criticism and the TV ad (by Leo Burnett) got banned by the ASA. An own goal, one might say.

The ASA ruled against Kellogg’s, who tried to defend it’s position (as you do) and said it must not use the claim “eat right” again in ads for Frosties, because it had a high sugar content and the ad implied the product was healthy because it showed children playing football.

Kellogg’s did try launching a reduced-sugar Frosties variant, but anti-obesity lobbyists slammed the product for its increased levels of salt and the fact it was still high in sugar based on Food Standards Agency measurements.

Next Tony became victim of Ofcom rules banning the use of cartoon characters in ‘unhealthy’ food advertising to children.

Shocking facts about obesity in youth has fuelled the debate about fats and sugars in foods, especially snacks like crisps, consumed by kids. One third of all primary school leavers are either obese or overweight.  Not surprising when a can of cola can contain up to eight teaspoons of sugar, and crisps contain high levels of salt and 25% fat.

As part of the Responsibility Deal, David Cameron has backed a “war on sugar”, commenting that high levels of sugar in food and drink was one of the biggest health threats in the country today. “As someone trying to bring up children without excessive amounts of Coca-Cola, I know how big this challenge is.”

While Frosties seems to be a brand on the way out, rather than try and sell a dead horse (or tiger), Kellogg’s are investing in new brands and have announced the launch of three new cereals, all of which are low in sugar to meet daytime television advertising regulations.

With such a powerful image and heritage, you do wonder why no one at Kellogg’s has not suggested a transfer to another brand. If footballers can do it, why not cartoon characters? It worked for Monkey, that stuffed Roland Rat type animal they use in PG Tip ads, who was originally used for a different brand all together.