neuromarketing – good as long as it doesn’t fall into the hands of dr. evil

Posted on November 3 by Al Moffatt

Contributor: Luka Birkić, Croatia

Have you ever wondered why your friend almost religiously buys only Apple products and rolls his eyes in disdain whenever he is confronted with another brand? Or (the most obvious example), why people are so fiercely loyal to either Coca-Cola or Pepsi? They are essentially identical drinks with distinctly different images. Consequently, both companies have their groups of “followers”.

Luka Birkić

The human mind is a complex structure. Unwillingly, after some time, we start to connect brands with certain emotions and bonds: childhood memories, a catchy melody, or the image that you get by consuming a particular set of products. It all plays a deciding role in our brand preferences.

Neuromarketing is a new field of marketing that measures the psychological state (heart rate, respiratory rate etc) and activities in different areas of the brain to find an explanation in customer preferences. Anybody who watched Morgan Spurlock’s documentary “The greatest movie ever sold” (highly recommended for everyone with an even slight interested in marketing) remembers the scene where the author is lying in a fMRI machine while being exposed to various ads.

The intriguing fact was that the measurements showed that his brain’s amygdala (the section responsible for emotions) and hippocampus (responsible for memories) overpowered the parts for reasoning and problem solving.

It is a key technology that will aid in penetrating the minds of the customers and interpreting the way a brand is viewed. Major companies, such as Microsoft (used to understand user’s feelings of satisfaction, surprise and frustration when interacting with computers), Daimler (showed pictures of car models to understand how customers perceive them), Yahoo (to test the reaction on their new ad campaign) and many others utilized neuromarketing to understand their current and potential customers better.

However, as is expected with every technology, neuromarketing has some major downsides. The consequences of unethical usage could be catastrophic. The first example that comes to my mind is the possible political manipulation of masses through campaigns.

The other obvious question is will the customers react differently in an environment outside the laboratory? Neuromarketing’s growth in popularity is unavoidable. However, controversy and large debates will always be the faithful followers of its every step.

Tweet this!Tweet this!
Posted in Advertising | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

branding charity

Posted on November 1 by Al Moffatt

Contributor: Natasha Fish, London

Last month, all over the world people were supporting Breast Cancer Awareness Month, an annual international health campaign organised by major breast cancer charities every October.

Natasha Fish

Over four weeks these independent organisations hope to increase awareness of the disease and raise funds for research into its cause, prevention, diagnosis, treatment and cure. Charities depend on the support of influential brands and companies as well as the public. While every individual counts, it’s the masses that can make a difference.

There are a great number of annual events here in the UK, organised to provide you and I with an opportunity to have fun with a cause and get active. I myself have participated in Race for Life, a 5k walk, jog or run held in numerous locations all over the country.

Race for Life was previously sponsored by Tesco but this relationship came to an end last month following 10 years of sponsorship. In an article by Marketing magazine, it described this as part of a wider trend that suggests the dynamic between brands and charities is changing.

Whereas brands used to support charities by providing a wodge of money and sitting back waiting for the return, the relationship is now much more complex and strategy based.

Supporting a charity or offering pro bono work is a very visible way of displaying corporate social responsibility – something which is becoming ever more important to consumers. In a piece of research commissioned by 23red, it was revealed that 60% of those quizzed felt an awareness of “a company’s ethics – environmental record, sourcing, sustainable employment policies, etc, affects their decision making”, while 53% said knowing that “the company donates a percentage of profits to charity and good causes” is influential when considering a purchase.

Each of these events could offer brands a great opportunity to display a sense of responsibility and commitment to their employers and consumers lives.

The support a charity receives ultimately comes down to the individual and the type of support they are willing and able to give. Many charities are set up by people who have experienced the pain of a disease or life changing event first hand. Take CoppaFeel! for example, founded by Kristin Hallenga who was diagnosed breast cancer at the age of just 23. Kristin has used her own battle to try and educate young women, whether it be via a tent at a music festival, with tweets, interviews or through engaging Facebook campaigns – she asks for support but continues to give 100% of her own time and energy into building awareness for the disease, and protecting others.

Other people actively organising events to raise funds, like a ’pink’ day or a bake sale and others take part in large organised opportunities to show their support. This is the category I fall under.

This year I took part in the London MoonWalk, a 26 mile (marathon distance) walk that takes place during the night round a planned route in aid of breast cancer. I took part with my mum, aunty and cousin and trained for six months investing in a great pair of ‘high-tech’ trainers. It was the toughest thing I’ve ever done, but was worth it; I supported an important cause and achieved a new personal goal.

Charity and the needs of others is a global tie that depends on the support of everyone that can provide it. But it can be tough when they are all dependent on the same thing; money. It can be hard to financially support everyone in need, which is why charitable organisations depend on brand help.

Life is for enjoying, loving and sharing. And if you chose to walk round in a bra and plastic poncho for 26 miles in the dead of night to show some support like me, then good luck!

Tweet this!Tweet this!
Posted in Advertising | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

what jobs meant to ad agencies

Posted on October 13 by Al Moffatt

Contributor, Engine Company 1, San Francisco, California

Tweet this!Tweet this!

Posted in Advertising | Tagged , | Leave a comment

what would eurozone collapse mean for ad industry?

Posted on October 11 by Al Moffatt

Contributor: Hannah Gabrielle, London

I don’t really know much about the Eurozone other than the fact that the media seems to have a unanimous opinion that it’s on the brink of collapse. My knowledge of it is confined to the fact that British leaders have kept our nation out of the Euro, but that inhabitants of Eurozone countries are allowed to migrate to Britain. That and a few weekends in European cities which suggested that having the Euro rather than, say, the Franc, means everything surreptitiously increased in price. So going to the continent no longer meant a cheap weekend away. But what does the supposedly immanent collapse of the Euro mean for the advertising industry? I’ve thought long and hard about this and come to the conclusion that the only way to unravel that conundrum is to understand what the collapse of the Euro might mean to consumers, and how it has affected their attitude to spending.

So I did a bit of digging. I asked a few friends and colleagues what it meant to them. And the answers were interesting. At first there was a furrowed brow. Then a shrug of the shoulders and finally the confession that it meant next to nothing to them. Almost everyone I spoke to had the same view: ‘well we’re in the economic doldrums anyway, so what difference does the collapse of the Euro make to me? What does it have to do with me anyway?’

Of course, currencies are like domino stacks, being interlinked and having an impact on surrounding economies, but my peer group seems to be quite fatalistic about the economy anyway. I asked people if their attitude to spending had changed in the last five years and it seems it hasn’t that much. One friend noted he had started buying 2-4-1 deals in the supermarket and buying cheaper option day to day essentials, but that he had also still bought himself expensive luxury items: a £100 pair or trainers, a new Mac book and iPhone in the last three months. So he wasn’t THAT cautious with his spending. I asked him why he thought he did this and he replied ‘well if everything’s going down the plug-hole you might as well enjoy life.’  This schizophrenic attitude to spending is probably one that best defines our generation.

What I don’t understand about the Eurozone – and all western economies at the moment – is that old adage ‘what goes up must come down‘. Because economists seem to suggest that what goes up must continue to soar, because, should it fall, then it’ll bring the sky down with it. People are more logical than this and quite accepting of the fact that peaks and troughs are inevitable.

Contributor Hannah Gabrielle

My spend-hungry friend and I got to talking about foreign currencies and the implications of their ups and downs and how we both felt about the financial crisis, which, we concurred, seems to have come about because of irresponsible banking behaviour. He said “When the banks talk about the economy they aren’t talking about your bank balance, or mine – they’re talking about their own. I don’t see why I should be punished and have to curb my spending if I’m living within my means – I haven’t done anything wrong.” So what does the collapse of the Eurozone mean for the advertising industry? Not a lot. People will continue to spend as long as they can afford to.

Tweet this!Tweet this!
Posted in Advertising, Economics, Marketing | Tagged , | Leave a comment

branding 9/11?

Posted on September 16 by Al Moffatt

Contributor: Luka Birkić, Croatia

Contributor Luka Birkić, Croatia

9/11 has been one of the key moments that defined the pop culture of the 21st Century – whether we like it or not.  Now, 10 years after the tragedy, a fact that is morbid to some and profitable to others, is that 9/11 has somehow become a brand. One with enormous emotional impact.

It makes perfect sense. ‘9/11’ immediately provokes a strong emotional reaction in almost everyone and aims straight to the collective subconscious. There is a strong sentimental tie for anyone affected by it.

People will always find new ways to make a “quick buck” out of everything. It therefore comes as no surprise that it is a subject of cheap exploitation in likely every popular media channel today. While some ads were backed by good causes and respectfully paid tribute, others surprised me with how far are they willing to go in order to milk the event for promotion.

Obviously, a magazine or newspaper cover with the “burning twins” is going to sell newspapers. But there are subtler examples that illustrate the appropriation of something which, to many, is an horrific event that should be remembered and commemorated.

It has been and is used by numerous clothing lines, it has been used as an anti-smoking campaign (http://i55.tinypic.com/24uyji0.jpg – also makes you wonder how exactly are Dubai and New Zealand, where the campaigns were launched, connected with New York), for French campaigns on various ecological issues and the dangers of non-drinking water, to portray Budweiser as a “patriotic beer” in a Super bowl ad which costs millions of dollars.

To my mind 9/11 should not be an opportunity to sell things simply because they show the Twin Towers on them, and I’m sure many feel the same. There are many examples but, in my humble opinion, this image from an American supermarket concession speaks a thousand words: http://tinypic.com/r/2427gk9/7 Never forget what exactly? The sales potential of 9/11?

Tweet this!Tweet this!
Posted in Advertising | Tagged | Leave a comment

brands just wanna be friends

Posted on September 7 by Al Moffatt

Contributor: Natasha Fish, London

Natasha Fish, London

Trust. Trust is a firm belief in the reliability, truth or ability of someone or something. Relationships are built on the trust we have earned from others.

When I hear, see or think of the word trust I instinctively think of family, friends; the people who I can confide in, that won’t let me down. But trust extends beyond people, it is the basis of many of the relationships we have in our day to day lives. I also think about products, items which when I go to the shops I buy again and again.

When I holiday abroad I find myself sticking to the products I know. In France, I’ve been known to hunt out my favourite Activia yoghurts, a DANONE brand. In America, it is Wrigley’s gum I seek out.

If someone has trust in a product, does that equate to trust in a brand? Does interaction extend beyond liking a product to liking its makers? When money is tight, will people resent having to change brands due to cost; should brands work to support their varying consumers or stick to one demographic and run with it?

For brands to ensure long-term growth they need the support of their consumers and peers, and this doesn’t just translate to financial support but engagement and in short, trust.

Some people will see beyond advertising and PR and identify only the business gain behind the sale of a product. Others may stop at the decision of whether they get enjoyment from a product or not. I sit half-way in between – sure, brands are in it for the business but so is everyone – any service sold relies on ‘gain’. I like having favourite products, for example I’m a user of Benefit make-up, and so are a lot of my friends. I like that when we get ready for an evening out we swap tips on the different blushers and lip glosses, and I’m sure Benefit as a brand would be pleased to hear of us interacting with its products. I trust the products I buy, and I trust Benefit will continue to make them to the high standard that they do.

This year The Reader’s Digest published its list of Europe’s most trusted brands in 2011, which interacted with 33,000 contributors, and saw a wide reach of sectors, with the top 10 including:

Nivea (skin care), Nokia, Visa, Canon, HP/HP Compaq, Ariel, Kellogg’s, Nestle, Miele and Nivea (Cosmetic).

These brands target a wide reach of people, I would argue within the top ten is a brand for every demographic.

While I may not be an expert in brand ethics or business sustainability, as a consumer I can recognise the part brands have to play in our day-to-day lives, and our need for choice.

As leadership author, Dr Blaine Lee neatly sums it up: “When people honour each other, there is a trust established that leads to synergy, interdependence, and deep respect. Both parties make decisions and choices based on what is right, what is best, what is valued most highly.”

Brands should bring this philosophy into their marketing strategies because trust can’t be bought. It is earned.


Tweet this!Tweet this!
Posted in Advertising | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

agencies help londoners rebuild after riots

Posted on August 17 by Al Moffatt

Contributor Hannah Gabrielle

Contributor, Hannah Gabrielle – London

In the wake of last week’s riots everyone in the UK has had to consider the action of the rioters and the underlying implications of their behaviour about our society. Parliament was recalled, politicians cut short their holidays and even our much beloved political commentator David Dimbleby was wheeled back in to chair the BBC’s Question Time, putting the public’s questions to heads of media, youth worker agencies, religion and politics. All in all it has been a time of serious debate and contemplation, as indeed it should.

However, as mentioned in my last ethnographer post, every cloud has a silver lining and in the worst times we often glimpse the best in people. Happily, the same can be said of the London ad agency community. Some agencies stepped up and used their knowledge of social media to galvanise support for the clean up efforts.

In my last post I reported that a website had been created to act as a hub for people wanting to clean up a particular area of London. It transpires that this was created by digital agency Dare. The site features images of the various clean ups, a Twitter feed gathering Tweets relevant to the clean ups and its web address (http://www.thisisourlondon.com/) even deftly expresses the defiance felt by many Londoners, reclaiming London’s identity from the aggression of the rioters.

Another heart warming story from the agency world is of two interns at BBH who were touched by the story of Aaron Biber, a Tottenham hairdresser, whose shop was ruined by rioters. They managed to raise an astonishing £25,000 to ‘Keep Aaron Cutting.’

These initiatives not only gave back to society at a time when we are all needed to pitch in and support the direct victims, but also benefit the agencies. In PR terms this kind of coverage is priceless. It showcases the benevolent spirit of the agency, the initiative of the staff and the culture which allows for unplanned charitable projects, allowing creative teams to apply their imagination to a worthy cause and help lift morale.

Of course smaller agencies would observe that such agencies have the budget and resource to allow immediate action, but that doesn’t lessen their impact or importance. I salute these campaigns and the agencies, not only for those they help directly, but also for renewing my somewhat wounded faith in British society. The bigger question for us now is whether, in light of the fact we are hosting the Olympics next year, brand Britain can recover from the negative image of our country that has been reported around the globe.

Tweet this!Tweet this!
Posted in Advertising | Tagged | Leave a comment

brand’s eye view of london riots

Posted on August 10 by Al Moffatt

Contributor, Hannah Gabrielle – London

London Riots: every cloud has a silver lining

As I’m sure everyone is aware, London, and now Britain, has been the scene of rioting and looting for the last few days. It has affected every corner of London, spreading like a virus, resulting in the wilful destruction of local communities, with shops being smashed up, looted, and, in extreme cases, razed to the ground.

Temporarily, London has become a scary place to live. Shops close and board up at 4pm, public transport is being cancelled to the worst affected areas, groups of thugs run wild in masks and hoodies on the streets and the sound of sirens and hovering helicopters late into the night has become the norm. Each day on my way home to Camberwell (South London) I’ve been passed by a cavalcade of riot vans, containing police in balaclavas and body armour. Anger and fear pervade.

None of us are sure if things are dying out or if it will flare up again, but the extraordinary circumstances have brought out the best and worst in people, with young, angry rioters indiscriminately targeting people and businesses alike, while others in a stand against the chaos patrol their neighbourhoods in peaceful groups to deter violent activity.

Social media has played a central role in events. Twitter and Blackberry Messenger (BBM) were blamed for being the means by which rioters organised the orgiastic violence. Debates have raged as to whether BBM and the Twitter accounts of rioters should be shut down altogether, however Twitter declined, sticking to its line that ‘the Tweets must flow’ and as yet BBM is still up and running.

Conversely, Twitter and the internet have also been the means by which clean up efforts have been organised and Facebook groups set up to galvanise community spirit and encourage people to stand together against the anarchy. Clapham, south London, was one of the areas to be torn apart on Monday. By Tuesday morning 400 local people had gathered to start the clean up, something that has been echoed across London. The scenes of independent businesses being burnt to the ground and groups of thugs mugging injured victims in broad daylight have sickened and shamed many of us. But every cloud has a silver lining and the so called ‘Blitz spirit’ of us Brits, dating back to World War 2, has also brought out the best – the resilience and courage to refuse to accept the cloud of intimidation and fear looming above.

The Twitter account @riotcleanup was set up on Monday and yesterday it already had 80,000 followers. A typically British consequence of this was that ‘#riotwombles’ became a Twitter trend, The Wombles being a popular cartoon from the 1970’s about a group of animals called Wombles living on Wimbledon Common who went about collecting litter every day. In a crisis the British sense of humour is one of our most important weapons to regaining a sense of normality.

So how can brands help? A riot hardly seems an appropriate opportunity to embark upon irrelevant ambush marketing. Certainly it would be inappropriate for brands to profiteer on the misery of others. I have read that a JD Sports executive interviewed on the BBC said his stores were being ransacked due to the “quality” of their products, which seems deeply distasteful.

However, there are some brands that seem to have got it right. Yesterday Sainsbury’s supermarket was supporting the efforts of volunteer cleaners in Clapham by handing out free food and drink. This highlighted the potentially controversial opportunity for brands to engage with these baffling events. It is something of a hot potato, but the action of Sainsbury’s demonstrates that if properly thought out, brands can enable the local community and become a part of the solution to the country-wide fear. Brands that can enable and harness the power of community spirit could become a rallying banner for those opposed to the brutality of the rioters and help create the future that the majority of Brits want: peace, calm and a strong community spirit opposed to violence.

My personal view of the riots, and one echoed by commentators in nationals press, is that the people involved in the mass thuggery represent a lack of community spirit across Britain. The best way to counter this abhorrent behaviour is to stand against it united as a community and to make long term commitments to building and strengthening this.  While in the short term I’m sure brands will be reluctant to be seen to be capitalising on the riots, surely the social issues thrown up by should be a consideration in their communications planning.

Tweet this!Tweet this!
Posted in Advertising | Tagged , | Leave a comment

beauty comes from within but shhh, don’t tell your consumers that

Posted on August 5 by Al Moffatt

Contributor, Natasha Fish, Pumpkin Public Relations

The portrayal of femininity and beauty in advertising has long been discussed by many acclaimed theorists and sociologists. Take for example, Gaye Tuchman (1978) who raised the debate of ‘the symbolic annihilation of women by the mass media’. Now this may sound extreme, but simply put, the term is usually applied to media criticism in the fields of feminism to describe ways in which the media promotes stereotypes and denies specific identities.

Although over 30 years old, this concept can still be applied to women’s advertising today. Just last week, L’Oreal was forced to pull ad campaigns featuring actress Julia Roberts and supermodel Christy Turlington. The driving force for which was UK Liberal Democrat MP, Jo Swinson, who has pursued a long-running campaign against “overly perfected and unrealistic images” of women in adverts (The Guardian, 27 July).

Having logged complaints with the Advertising Standards Authority, she criticised that images of both women had been digitally manipulated. As Swinson put it: “Pictures of flawless skin and super-slim bodies are all around, but they don’t reflect reality. Excessive airbrushing and digital manipulation techniques have become the norm but both Christy Turlington and Julia Roberts are naturally beautiful women who don’t need retouching to look great. This ban sends a powerful message to advertisers – let’s get back to reality.”

So while brands like L’Oreal busy themselves with airbrushing, is anyone willing to consider natural beauty?

Yes, Dove is.

Renowned for its “Campaign for real beauty”, Dove has become the leader in foregrounding ‘you and I’ as the face of its products.

In 2004, Dove established the Self-Esteem Fund (DSEF) to inspire and educate girls and young women about a wider definition of beauty, helping girls build positive self-esteem and a healthy body image.

The brand’s ad campaigns now feature everyday women from all over the globe in all their glory, embracing the markings that make our bodies unique.

But while Dove believes in its campaigns and we believe in its campaigns, does the brand’s owner, multinational corporation, Unilever?

Criticised for its mixed-messaging, there’s a distinct difference between the women in Dove campaigns, to those in fellow Unilever brand, Lynx’s, which opt for toned, sexy models. I mean you don’t see the Dove women running across the beach in their bikinis to find the man with the Lynx can do you?

As Tom Huxtable, managing partner at 23red recently highlighted: “When people realised that they were both Unilever products, they felt this was hypocritical [positioning]”. 23red, the integrated creative agency, has just launched ‘Great Good’, an initiative which educates brands and businesses on how best to leverage their ‘good’ corporate & internal behavior as part of their marketing mix.

So what does this mean? Does natural beauty really sell – if it does why are women still encouraged to buy products to ‘better’ their appearance, and why are these always promoted by women who look like they don’t need to use the product in the first place? Will men only buy products that proclaim to increase their chances with beautiful women?

Furthermore, the question remains, what do women respond to better: natural or digitally-enhanced beauty?

In my opinion there’s no clear distinction. There are so many elements in an advertisement, the product, the brand, the price, the person modeling the product, the current trends, to name but a few – I would expect most women to react to both; I know I do.

Tweet this!Tweet this!
Posted in Advertising | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

after the tsunami, what’s next?

Posted on August 4 by Al Moffatt

Contributor: Heng Aw, Asia Pacific Director of Collaborations, Worldwide Partners

In today’s tweet-by-the-minute, what’s-trending world that we live in, we are constantly being inundated by ‘new’ products and services. The perfectly ground-breaking iPad was quickly made obsolete by iPad 2 less than a year later. And iPhone 5 is just beyond the horizon.

And the business of news is no different. Today’s breaking-news will quickly be forgotten by next week, replaced by ‘newer’ breaking-news. This week the US debt-ceiling deal occupied most of the news, even in the Far East., together with Hosni Mubarak’s court appearance. Two weeks ago it was the Murdochs and phone-hacking in the UK. Most of the time this does not cause us any problems other than the occasional annoyance with news fatigue.

But, what if the intensity of the original news left a powerful negative impression in the world’s collective minds which now acts to the detriment to the subject of the news reporting?

On March 11 the world’s attention was focused on the tragedy that struck a strip of the north east shore of Japan. We all watched in silent horror as the tsunami swept across the countryside and destroyed towns, homes and lives. Then came the pictures of the explosions at the nuclear reactors. These saturated the print, broadcast and digital media channels. The threat of radiation contamination in the air, water, soil and food chain were communicated and left in the world’s mind.

The people of Fukushima prefecture were left to slowly rebuild their lives which they have done admirably. But the world’s media soon found something new to focus their attention on… the Arab Spring Uprising. Followed by Kate and William’s wedding. Then, phone-hacking. Then…

What the people of Japan need most in their rebuilding effort is for the world’s tourists to resume their visits to Japan. For the world’s consumers to resume consuming Japanese produce to help the Japanese farmers. These will bring much needed support, economically and morally.

But, findings of a survey conducted at the end of June by Asahi Advertising amongst its Worldwide Partners agency partners, show that the 311 respondents from 34 countries still harbour negative perceptions about the situation in Japan.

Fifty percent feel that the situation has so far improved only 20% or not at all. Over 51% feel that it would take 3 years or longer for the country to recover.

While about one in 10 of the respondents will unconditionally purchase Japanese agricultural produce, half of the respondents still do not intend to do so.

Compared to a similar survey conducted in April, a month after the disaster, the proportion of respondents who would like to visit Japan decreased; down from 47% to 40%. And more prefer to wait-and-see; those who would like to visit Japan but ‘sometime in the future’ rose from 36% to 44%. Their biggest reasons for holding back their visit are ‘exposure to radiation’ 53% and ‘Food contaminated by radiation’ 39%.

These are unfounded fear but as all marketers know, what’s perceived is real. It would be nice if the world media could report on the recovery programs and positive results achieved. But I guess good news doesn’t grab people’s attention and there’s no shortage of bad news and calamities to be today’s breaking news.

Tweet this!Tweet this!
Posted in Advertising | Leave a comment