I've noticed recently a number of new brands from various categories trying to implement some of the thinking behind reward schemes to increase the consumption and loyalty levels of their consumers. We've had Coke Zone, the Telegraph subscription model and today I read about Nuts TV creating a rewards card for Sky viewers. http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/846153/Nuts-TV-links-MiCard-interactive-loyalty-card-offer/
Now it is understandable that brands such as these want to find a way to increase frequency of consumption whilst gathering data about their consumers, both incredibly valuable objectives. Coke is constantly battling against new brands eroding their share of throat, the Telegraph like all newspapers is desperate to find a way to stem the long-term decline and Nuts TV will never really show up on BARB so needs another way to prove to the media buying world that it does have an audience after all.
There's nothing new in this either - Loyalty schemes have been around longer than any of us, well before Boots, Tesco or Nectar. When I was a kid, pretty much every piece of glassware in the house was from Esso - I can still remember the collector's catalogue now, and my Mum always had a few books full of Co-op stamps. And they work - I know plenty of people who will only use Boots for anything that is possible to be bought at Boots.
However, I'm not sure that all of these new entrants are getting it right - the Nuts TV and MiCard idea is a nice one but I'm not convinced it is going to work, ditto Coke - so here are a few pitfalls I think companies need to watch out for and few pointers for how to make such schemes work.
1) The biggest and most obvious one is "MAKE IT SIMPLE".
This sounds like a no-brainer I know, but as companies try to maximise their data acquisition, minimise fraud, minimise cost per user and maximise PR-ability (and breathe...!), they end up putting in a huge number of steps and hurdles to take up which turn people away in droves.
With CokeZone you have to find a unique code under the label, then keep hold of the bottle, take it to your computer and then plug in the code. In the post MTV generation your typical Coke consumer just doesn't have the attention span to go through all that. The genius of the supermarket loyalty scheme is that collecting fits so naturally into your normal shopping habits and require no real effort on the part of the consumer.
If Coke Zone had a free-text number or even a mobile java photo application that could read the code, suddenly it would be so much easier for the consumer to do the collection
2) Make the rewards a real reward.
Don't make people collect large numbers of points just to get a money off voucher for something they didn't really want anyway. Most consumers are savvy enough to realise that they could probably get those discounts through online vouchers anyway or find the product cheaper elsewhere so won't feel like they are actually being rewarded by your brand, merely being shepherded towards one of your partners. The more cynical amongst them might even assume you're making some profit out of it. For example - "collect 5 points for free delivery on consolesandgadgets.co.uk" sounds like a bit of a non-offer to me.
If you are giving people a reward for their loyalty, don't make them spend more money to get it, actually give them something they would want for free.
3) Know your audience -
Nescafé have run a loyalty scheme for a number of years called "Pick-me-ups" where you collect stamps on the back of packs, stick them onto a collectors card and send them in to claim gifts from a catalogue. It's all very 1970s, but then the average Nescafe drinker is over 50 and this method of interaction works very well for them. They are investigating an online collection method, but if they know what is good for them they won't eliminate the paper and glue option because it is working and the collectors love it.
This point also extends to the rewards - make sure that you are giving people what they actually want. Give them a forum to feedback on the rewards, make suggestions or just say hello.
4) Don't mistake scheme participation for brand or product loyalty.
No reward scheme can be a replacement for true brand development, otherwise as soon as the reward scheme stops, the loyalty stops. A reward scheme should just be viewed as a way of maximising the share of pocket of someone who is already a consumer. It will never be motivating enough to convince a non-consumer to start consuming.
5) Give it time to succeed
You are trying to build a whole new habit in your consumers and one which requires extra work. It's clearly not going to happen overnight.
That's all I've got for now - I might add more later
Tuesday 16 September 2008
Tuesday 9 September 2008
Tuesday 2 September 2008
Summertime and the TV is shitty
I recently returned from holiday, a wonderful 2 weeks in the pissing rain in a tent in Wales. After all that I was dying to sit down and have a few hours watching TV before going back to work and back to winter, it represented my last few hours of genuine freedom.
Imagine my disappointment then when I found my Sky+ pretty much empty. All my series linked programmes had finished and apparently been replaced with Big Brother and interminable re-runs of CSI. I know that viewing is expected to go down in the summer, but if you assume that no-one is going to watch and so don't put any decent programming on then you'll be proved right. Please spare a thought for those of us who don't get to spend 8 weeks on holiday and still would like to watch something of value of an evening.
Even worse - because I had to watch Live TV, suddenly I had to watch the ads as well. by the end of two hours of TV I was ready to gouge out my own eyeballs with a rusty spoon. Two hours of summer commercial TV = 20 minutes of the most half arsed, generic, bland 30" spots that it has been my misfortune to see. I guess I was being punished because a number of them were government campaigns that I'd actually been responsible for planning.
Anyway my point is that crap programming = crap advertising = no-one pays any attention to anything. Surely this is an opportunity for a brave broadcaster to buck the trend and bring out some great content just for the Summer. Yes people might be away, but at any given time there will still be 80% of the available audience just gasping for a breath of fresh broadcasting air. It would be a perfect sponsorship opportunity as it would allow a brand to be associated with the best thing on TV at people's favourite time of year.
Someone please? I'll sponsor it!
Imagine my disappointment then when I found my Sky+ pretty much empty. All my series linked programmes had finished and apparently been replaced with Big Brother and interminable re-runs of CSI. I know that viewing is expected to go down in the summer, but if you assume that no-one is going to watch and so don't put any decent programming on then you'll be proved right. Please spare a thought for those of us who don't get to spend 8 weeks on holiday and still would like to watch something of value of an evening.
Even worse - because I had to watch Live TV, suddenly I had to watch the ads as well. by the end of two hours of TV I was ready to gouge out my own eyeballs with a rusty spoon. Two hours of summer commercial TV = 20 minutes of the most half arsed, generic, bland 30" spots that it has been my misfortune to see. I guess I was being punished because a number of them were government campaigns that I'd actually been responsible for planning.
Anyway my point is that crap programming = crap advertising = no-one pays any attention to anything. Surely this is an opportunity for a brave broadcaster to buck the trend and bring out some great content just for the Summer. Yes people might be away, but at any given time there will still be 80% of the available audience just gasping for a breath of fresh broadcasting air. It would be a perfect sponsorship opportunity as it would allow a brand to be associated with the best thing on TV at people's favourite time of year.
Someone please? I'll sponsor it!
Thursday 7 August 2008
fluffy addiction
In a previous post I lamented the overuse of violence in videogames as a substitute for innovation and inspiration. http://ginjaninjamedia.blogspot.com/2007/10/killer-applications.html
This little beauty however is the most violence free possible game and is frankly a little gem. I guess it demonstrates how the gaming world is expanding rapidly away from teenage boys towards older women and pretty much everyone.
Love it - have a go!
http://www.ferryhalim.com/orisinal/g3/bells.htm
Orisinal have been around for a while now creating some of the most beautiful casual games on the web and they still haven't gone commercial, I don't understand how it works - anyone with insight let me know.
Wednesday 6 August 2008
Dirt is Good - Mums are evil tyrants
There's been quite a lot of commentary on the latest Persil ad (Robot boy) and I've been trying to work out why this one just doesn't work as well for me as previous iterations and I think I've worked it out. Here's my thinking - for what it is worth
You don't need me to tell you that the "Dirt is Good" campaign is constantly held up as the epitome of a great "Big Idea". It shows a true empathy with mums and positions Persil as a brand that helps you be a great mum bringing up happy kids. That's about as emotionally engaging as advertising gets and has delivered huge levels of equity to the Persil brand.
The Robot boy ad should just be a continuation of that campaign, (which has been interpreted around the world with great effect, highlighting the fundamental human truth in the insight) so why do I come away feeling worse about Persil?
I think what has happened is that in this ad Persil has moved from the role of partner and confidant to Preacher and critic. The broad message "Getting dirty and having fun is what being a kid is all about, and Persil means that the dirt doesn't matter" stays the same, but the subtext has changed.
In the original "It's not Dirt" campaign the subtext was "You're a good mum and like to make sure your kids are happy and that means letting them get dirty from time to time. We feel the same and have made a product that means you don't have to worry about the dirt and can enjoy the results." The emotional take-out is one of being care-free and happy in the knowledge that you're doing the best by your kid.
In this new execution the subtext that I'm taking out is "If you don't let your child get dirty you're a bad mum because it won't ever learn to have fun and be a proper child. Keeping your child too clean will turn your child into a social recluse without any personality. Unless you use Persil you're a bad mum"
Or even more extreme "Preventing your child from getting dirty is tantamount to child abuse as you are taking away their fundamental human freedoms" The emotional take out here is guilt that you're not able to let your child play out as much as you would like because of all the dangers facing them today.
The line "every child has the right to be a child" echoes campaigns such as this from Global Water
Or this one from UNICEF
Obviously Persil aren't suggesting that mums who don't let their kids get dirty are on a level with nations putting guns and bombs in the hands of children or governments providing typhoid infected drinking water, but using this kind of language gives rise to those sorts of feelings.
Persil have to remember what they actually do well - They get clothes clean. The original "dirt is good" campaign connected Persil with all the positive emotions of having a reliable detergent to clean your kids' clothes and they had an absolute right to take that territory. However this new campaign places Persil in a role of social commentator, preaching to mothers about how to be good mums as if it were all about clean clothes. They do not have the right to do this and I think it backfires on them
You don't need me to tell you that the "Dirt is Good" campaign is constantly held up as the epitome of a great "Big Idea". It shows a true empathy with mums and positions Persil as a brand that helps you be a great mum bringing up happy kids. That's about as emotionally engaging as advertising gets and has delivered huge levels of equity to the Persil brand.
The Robot boy ad should just be a continuation of that campaign, (which has been interpreted around the world with great effect, highlighting the fundamental human truth in the insight) so why do I come away feeling worse about Persil?
I think what has happened is that in this ad Persil has moved from the role of partner and confidant to Preacher and critic. The broad message "Getting dirty and having fun is what being a kid is all about, and Persil means that the dirt doesn't matter" stays the same, but the subtext has changed.
In the original "It's not Dirt" campaign the subtext was "You're a good mum and like to make sure your kids are happy and that means letting them get dirty from time to time. We feel the same and have made a product that means you don't have to worry about the dirt and can enjoy the results." The emotional take-out is one of being care-free and happy in the knowledge that you're doing the best by your kid.
In this new execution the subtext that I'm taking out is "If you don't let your child get dirty you're a bad mum because it won't ever learn to have fun and be a proper child. Keeping your child too clean will turn your child into a social recluse without any personality. Unless you use Persil you're a bad mum"
Or even more extreme "Preventing your child from getting dirty is tantamount to child abuse as you are taking away their fundamental human freedoms" The emotional take out here is guilt that you're not able to let your child play out as much as you would like because of all the dangers facing them today.
The line "every child has the right to be a child" echoes campaigns such as this from Global Water
Or this one from UNICEF
Obviously Persil aren't suggesting that mums who don't let their kids get dirty are on a level with nations putting guns and bombs in the hands of children or governments providing typhoid infected drinking water, but using this kind of language gives rise to those sorts of feelings.
Persil have to remember what they actually do well - They get clothes clean. The original "dirt is good" campaign connected Persil with all the positive emotions of having a reliable detergent to clean your kids' clothes and they had an absolute right to take that territory. However this new campaign places Persil in a role of social commentator, preaching to mothers about how to be good mums as if it were all about clean clothes. They do not have the right to do this and I think it backfires on them
Early Ad-funded content by Budweiser
Just randomly stumbled across a Temperance website with lots of songs from the Temperance movement of 1905.
http://www.temperancetantrum.com/Under%20the%20Anheuser%20Bush.htm
I particularly liked this song though which seems to have been commissioned by Budweiser -
UNDER THE ANHEUSER BUSH
Talk about the shade of the sheltering palms
Praise the bamboo tree and it's wide spreading charms
There's a little bush that grows right here in town
You know it's name it has won such renown
Often with my sweetheart just after the play
To this little place then my footsteps will stray
If she hesitates when she looks at the sign
Softly I whisper, "Now Sue, don't decline…."
Rave about the place where you swells go to dine
Picture you and me with our sandwich and stein
Underneath the bush where the good fellows meet
Life seems worth living, our joy is complete
If you're sad at heart take a trip there tonight
You'll forget your woe and your eyes will grow bright.
There you'll surely find me with my sweetheart, Sue.
Come down this evening, I'll introduce you.
Come, come, come and make eyes with me
Under the Anheuser Bush
Come come drink some Budwise with me
Under the Anheuser Bush
Hear the old German Band
Just let me hold your hand YAH!
Do, do come and have a stein or two
Under the Anheuser Bush!
I bet Budweiser (or any other brewer for that matter)wish that they could still use themes like this in their advertising.
Update - Just found a clip of the original song. http://bestwebs.com/vaudeville/nindex.html - Enjoy
http://www.temperancetantrum.com/Under%20the%20Anheuser%20Bush.htm
I particularly liked this song though which seems to have been commissioned by Budweiser -
UNDER THE ANHEUSER BUSH
Talk about the shade of the sheltering palms
Praise the bamboo tree and it's wide spreading charms
There's a little bush that grows right here in town
You know it's name it has won such renown
Often with my sweetheart just after the play
To this little place then my footsteps will stray
If she hesitates when she looks at the sign
Softly I whisper, "Now Sue, don't decline…."
Rave about the place where you swells go to dine
Picture you and me with our sandwich and stein
Underneath the bush where the good fellows meet
Life seems worth living, our joy is complete
If you're sad at heart take a trip there tonight
You'll forget your woe and your eyes will grow bright.
There you'll surely find me with my sweetheart, Sue.
Come down this evening, I'll introduce you.
Come, come, come and make eyes with me
Under the Anheuser Bush
Come come drink some Budwise with me
Under the Anheuser Bush
Hear the old German Band
Just let me hold your hand YAH!
Do, do come and have a stein or two
Under the Anheuser Bush!
I bet Budweiser (or any other brewer for that matter)wish that they could still use themes like this in their advertising.
Update - Just found a clip of the original song. http://bestwebs.com/vaudeville/nindex.html - Enjoy
Friday 1 August 2008
Cuil is so not.
There has been general condemnation of Cuil - my personal reasons are below
OK, The sell in was good
1) Indexes 3 times as many pages as google
2) Groups into categories
3) Gives each one a picture
That all sounds very good and when you first arrive at a search results page it looks interesting and different, and that's when you realise it doesn't have a hope in its current form. The reasons it will fail are the reasons it thinks it is better!
1) 3 times as many pages as google - So what?! If it fails to discriminate between the quality of those sites and the relevance to your search then what's the point - 3 times as many pages means 3 times as much work for me to find the one I want. The search that I did on Cuil ("Guinness fake advert") did not return a single relevant result on Cuil - it only returned other paid for search sites - whereas all of the top 5 results on Google were 100% relevant to my search
2) Groups into Categories - This just makes it less accessible. The beauty of Google has always been its simplicity, and the whole world has been trained to use it. I don't want to have to re-train my brain to think in categories. (they don't seem to work anyway. )
3) Pictures - Irrelevant and small - they add nothing except complexity.
Saying all of this, it doesn't mean I don't think anyone can challenge Google. When Google first came along, it seemed like an impossible task for them take over Yahoo's dominance and we all thought it would remain a niche preference and look what happened there!
However the difference between then and now is that Google had a true product benefit which was recognised by the opinion forming niche. Can anyone explain to me the benefit of Cuil?
OK, The sell in was good
1) Indexes 3 times as many pages as google
2) Groups into categories
3) Gives each one a picture
That all sounds very good and when you first arrive at a search results page it looks interesting and different, and that's when you realise it doesn't have a hope in its current form. The reasons it will fail are the reasons it thinks it is better!
1) 3 times as many pages as google - So what?! If it fails to discriminate between the quality of those sites and the relevance to your search then what's the point - 3 times as many pages means 3 times as much work for me to find the one I want. The search that I did on Cuil ("Guinness fake advert") did not return a single relevant result on Cuil - it only returned other paid for search sites - whereas all of the top 5 results on Google were 100% relevant to my search
2) Groups into Categories - This just makes it less accessible. The beauty of Google has always been its simplicity, and the whole world has been trained to use it. I don't want to have to re-train my brain to think in categories. (they don't seem to work anyway. )
3) Pictures - Irrelevant and small - they add nothing except complexity.
Saying all of this, it doesn't mean I don't think anyone can challenge Google. When Google first came along, it seemed like an impossible task for them take over Yahoo's dominance and we all thought it would remain a niche preference and look what happened there!
However the difference between then and now is that Google had a true product benefit which was recognised by the opinion forming niche. Can anyone explain to me the benefit of Cuil?
Guinness "fake" ad
So what do we think? Is this ad (currently to be found on Youtube) a complete fake or is it a stunt by Diageo? By claiming no knowledge of it, Guinness do benefit from the viral without having to take the consequences.
Being the cynical chap that I am, it was easy to become suspicious on first viewing and agree with comments of people "smelling a rat" : http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/MostRead/836025/Diageo-demands-sexy-fake-Guinness-viral-pulled/ but in this instance I believe Diageo when they claim righteous indignation and horror that this is out there in their name.
The repercussions that would result from an alcohol company making anything even close to an ad like that would be immense. There is significant global momentum to try to ban all alcohol marketing and advertising and the only way that spirits, wine and beer manufacturers have managed to continue to advertise in markets such as the UK/US/Europe is that they have very strict industry wide self imposed rules about how and where they can market their products. If it was found that Diageo were the source of this ad or even that they had tacitly allowed their agency to "secretly" make it then you could be sure that they would find themselves subject to increasingly draconian laws as punishment.
Frankly, Diageo are one of the most responsible advertisers in their industry and indeed lead the way in setting down the responsible marketing guidelines, so I for one cannot believe that they would have anything to do with it.
Being the cynical chap that I am, it was easy to become suspicious on first viewing and agree with comments of people "smelling a rat" : http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/MostRead/836025/Diageo-demands-sexy-fake-Guinness-viral-pulled/ but in this instance I believe Diageo when they claim righteous indignation and horror that this is out there in their name.
The repercussions that would result from an alcohol company making anything even close to an ad like that would be immense. There is significant global momentum to try to ban all alcohol marketing and advertising and the only way that spirits, wine and beer manufacturers have managed to continue to advertise in markets such as the UK/US/Europe is that they have very strict industry wide self imposed rules about how and where they can market their products. If it was found that Diageo were the source of this ad or even that they had tacitly allowed their agency to "secretly" make it then you could be sure that they would find themselves subject to increasingly draconian laws as punishment.
Frankly, Diageo are one of the most responsible advertisers in their industry and indeed lead the way in setting down the responsible marketing guidelines, so I for one cannot believe that they would have anything to do with it.
Thursday 31 July 2008
Star over London - a Shining light in sponsorship opportunities
So by now I'm guessing that most of you will have seen the fabulous Stella Artois Zeppellin flying over London, or even if you haven't seen it first hand you'll have seen the coverage in numerous newspapers and on the gogglebox.
Firstly can I just say congratulations to whoever at InBev decided to go with this opportunity. It's an inspired piece of sponsorship that fits perfectly with the brand personality that Stella has spent so long building over the years. The Zeppellin is a joy to see flying over London (especially during this mini heatwave) and epitomises the inspirational exculsivity that is the Stella Brand.
It's also a brave move because the venture was dreamt up and put into action by ex-bankruptee and former "Apprentice" candidate Rory Laing who was fired in just the second show of Season 3.(http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/apprentice_2007/can_rory.shtml) .
Considering the quality of the winners of The Apprentice, I'd understand clients being slightly concerned about committing considerable sums of money to one of the losers! However congratulations to Rory as well, he has definitely found an unique and differentiated way of cashing in on his 15 seconds of fame and he can definitely claim to be a real entrepreneur now.
Secondly I'd just like to say how jealous I am. This opportunity was brought to me by our sponsorship and promotions department before Stella had even heard of it. I was extremely excited by it and I virtually begged my client to sponsor the Zeppelin. They also got very excited by it but in the end their risk averse nature and their relatively small budgets meant that it never got off the ground (pun intended).
As my relationship with the client has developed since I now know how I should have sold it and I guess I'll learn from it for next time, but until that time I'll have a little cry every time I see it hovering over some of the most identifiable landmarks in the country.
You live and learn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)