A few decades back, a Unipart commercial scrolled up my TV screen and then, at the end, proudly exclaimed: 'The answer's yes... now what's the question?'.
Now I return to these shores after a career spanning the world, it would be 'The answer is no, as it might go wrong and I'll be blamed'.
And after waaaay too many sessions (funded by the taxpayer) with various quangos and their employees, despite their being in an ideal position to matchmake complementary talents, they all still give me 5 half days just to drop dosh on me so long as I tick a box, and totally fail to understand that what makes innovation pay is a team that takes creation to sale; and not every good idea is generated by a person capable of, much less skilled in drawing up 10 year projections that suggest targets that need to be set but never met once signed off.
Showing posts with label AD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AD. Show all posts
Monday, October 19, 2009
Sunday, February 08, 2009
IRONY ALERT - speak softly, but carry a big budget
I don't know if I'd go as far as accusing it of greenwashing (they are trying to DO something, well, by 2025), but this banner made me giggle.I don't know if it is complemented by equally large, and expensive print ads, but the TV commercial is certainly pervasive.
So I am a little unclear as to the definition of 'not shouting about it' being used.
And how all that money could be better applied... more tangibly, reducing some more.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Rules without rulers.
I found this interesting:
ASA - British Sky Broadcasting Ltd t/a Sky
Mainly because, amongst all the rest, of this: '...We understood that there was no generally accepted definition of carbon neutral but that the claim could be evaluated against generally accepted best practice. '
Might it not be a plan for consumers to have one... that makes sense.. and they can trust?
For now, that term means diddly squat to me and washes over like sensible enviro policies on a Government Minister.
I'm also gathering, from look at other judgements, that being told not to run an already expended campaign again is hardly the greatest motivating penalty to not repeat again. POOR Show.
ASA - British Sky Broadcasting Ltd t/a Sky
Mainly because, amongst all the rest, of this: '...We understood that there was no generally accepted definition of carbon neutral but that the claim could be evaluated against generally accepted best practice. '
Might it not be a plan for consumers to have one... that makes sense.. and they can trust?
For now, that term means diddly squat to me and washes over like sensible enviro policies on a Government Minister.
I'm also gathering, from look at other judgements, that being told not to run an already expended campaign again is hardly the greatest motivating penalty to not repeat again. POOR Show.
Friday, July 04, 2008
'It must be good; we spent millions on it'
I am grateful to Dave of Solarventi for this link to one the greater 'Well, d'uh's' of the year:
Government ads for climate change need a new approach
And just how much has been blown on massive green-related comms efforts to date, until just now coming to the realisation that 'The 3 'E's' (entertainment, engagement and end-benefit) are more likely to work than nanny, nag, guilt, fine or fear?
Any nitwit can do a 'we're all doomed/look how awful things are' ad and stick a 'well don't do it' finger wag and URL in the final 5 seconds to log a box tick for 'awareness'.
To effect change, the tricky bit is actually motivating folk to turn from screen and act differently... whilst not minding at all. That ain't so easy, and takes a bit of thought... but it can be done.
As almost no one currently blowing vast budgets trying seems to have managed, maybe we need new bloods commissioning, creating and approving beyond the current crop of unaccountable Gov depts, open-chequebook quangos and their generous SoHo post-strategy dining hosts... and production/media budget beneficiaries (with doubtless some truly spectacular offsetting at work here as well come invoicing time)?
Government ads for climate change need a new approach
And just how much has been blown on massive green-related comms efforts to date, until just now coming to the realisation that 'The 3 'E's' (entertainment, engagement and end-benefit) are more likely to work than nanny, nag, guilt, fine or fear?
Any nitwit can do a 'we're all doomed/look how awful things are' ad and stick a 'well don't do it' finger wag and URL in the final 5 seconds to log a box tick for 'awareness'.
To effect change, the tricky bit is actually motivating folk to turn from screen and act differently... whilst not minding at all. That ain't so easy, and takes a bit of thought... but it can be done.
As almost no one currently blowing vast budgets trying seems to have managed, maybe we need new bloods commissioning, creating and approving beyond the current crop of unaccountable Gov depts, open-chequebook quangos and their generous SoHo post-strategy dining hosts... and production/media budget beneficiaries (with doubtless some truly spectacular offsetting at work here as well come invoicing time)?
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Inspired?
One more for my new ad-related blog, Bordello Ivory Tales (link RHS), but it still applies here, if not more so.
In case the image is not clear, 90% is of a plane. You can see the headline.
Now, honestly, has that got you running to book a train?
I'm sorry, but waaaay too many green-related ads are a total waste of money. This was 2/3 page colour in the Sunday Times.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
2nd Use in Action!
Just had in the latest consumer-inspiring creative from those jolly recycling chaps.Fortunately, it has arrived just as I am preparing my speech for the forthcoming ECOPACK conference on the topic of, well, amongst other things: 'Giving your plastic bottles the chance of becoming something else.
Only... perhaps with a bit more Junkk.com end-benefit and a little RE:tie twist to top it off.
Nice to see the big bucks comm budgets cranking out those award-winners.
Monday, February 11, 2008
You gotta larf
Sorry, but this just appealed to my sense of irony.On the page devoted to a piece on climate science (well, the apparent supression of a scientist in the field - Climate scientist they could not silence), I could not help but note what rather dominated the rest of the page. Not quite the same on the online version.
There's the medium. There's the message. There's mixed. And there's just, plain 'off'.
The media really does just love it all ways.
Just in case they don't 'moderate' it in:
Meanwhile, in the print edition, the majority of the page with this piece seems to be dominated for a Tesco ad for cheap petrol - 'Every litre helps'.
Not quite clear as to what, in the circumstances.
Delicious irony?'
Bet they're in with a chance at the Sunday Times "Best Green Companies" slot, mind.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Responsibiity 'du jour'
See that first picture? That was on a Range Rover ad a wee while ago. Actually, in the Sunday Times when they were doing a 'special' on climate change. I think I may even have commented upon it (can't seem to find it via my tags).
See the second? Same vehicle. Same paper. And, actually, run twice, in two sections. And this on the weekend after that IPCC report.
Thing is, try as I might, I can't for the life of me find that same responsibility claim. There's one about driving responsibility off road. Nothing about 'going', Co2 wise.
Now it surely can't be that the offset was just for the edition in question, so why would they not run it in all subsequent ads I wonder?
Friday, November 02, 2007
The company you keep, or who keeps you
I am looking forward to this. I get the ST anyway, so it's a bonus not to have to go out and buy it.By way of reminder, I just had an email.
Thing is, the ad alongside was/is from BMW.
No real problem, there (well, maybe a teensie-weesnie one). Their 1 series is apparently better than a Prius. Not that this seemed to be the message. More about touring the globe, and going on a journey together. The example I saw was Hong Kong, with a night view of all the skyscrapers ablaze. Apparently, the light show went on all night.
Not sure, but that may also go a small way to '... explaining the damage we're doing'.
Just a thought.
Treehugger - (are they following me?) - How Green Can a Newspaper Afford to Be?
The difference between the views of on-line and paper readers is notable, with 81% of paper readers thinking the coverage on climate change was excellent but only 45% of the web readers agreeing. - Well, D'uh. Which medium is lower impact?
Not sure the Editor has quite nailed the justification, mind.
Dirty great big car and skiing holiday ads (while the snow lasts!) next to pieces about how awful it all is what 'we' are doing to the planet and how 'we' need to be more aware of 'our' impact' and 'we' need to act now, rather undercut the basic thrust of many pieces, though.
Or maybe there are different 'we's' around. The 'we' haves and the ''we' haven't yets, because it's not like, you know, practical, as such'?
It's what you say. It's how you say it. And when.
How a bottle of mineral water caused a volcanic eruption
Reminds me of a story from my ad days of a tinned salmon manufacturer whose product happened to be a pale white.
The line proposed by the agency was 'Guaranteed not to go pink'. True. No bearing on anything. Not even illegal (morals/ethics...well...). Worked a treat.
Reminds me of a story from my ad days of a tinned salmon manufacturer whose product happened to be a pale white.
The line proposed by the agency was 'Guaranteed not to go pink'. True. No bearing on anything. Not even illegal (morals/ethics...well...). Worked a treat.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Save the world. A list.
A little while ago some chums and I made a TV commercial for a contest (oddly, in that it was 30" and we cut to that, it is now ":60 to Save the Earth" ecospot). Seems we didn't get into the finals. So now it's free to use, here it is:
As a creative soul, and in the spirit of unsweetened grapes (it's all how you say it these days), here's my purely subjective review (hey, it's what blogs are for, and I've found that playing coy gets you nowhere) of what beat us:
1. Are You Game? – First up. Mentions Al Gore. Twice. Darn, should have thought of that!
2. Change the way you think. – Some nice imagery, I guess.
3. Cheeto and Vinn – OK. Singled-minded and funny. Gets the point across. I’m wishing we’d gone the 60’ option now.
4. Decisions – Again, not bad imagery. But hard to get ‘into’.
5. Gaia's Lament – yeah, well. Whatever.
6. Get Your Green on – And there’s a single out soon, too:)
7. Green – Nice. Yet one of the lowest ratings so far.
8. I Did Nothn' – A good line in there somewhere.
9. Keep it Equal – Nice idea. Neat editting.
10. Lights Out – OK, so it’s campaignable. Worth two in the finals?
11. Perry the Cockroach – Um, pass.
12. Plastic Ocean – Nice, simple idea.
13. Roachie Enviro Contest – If you’re going to use music, it seems it is better if wra... er... rapped.
14. Small Changes – I’m just guessing, but I think going with plastic bags would make one a shoe-in.
15. Small Steps – Sort of cute.
16. Support Good Hot – Energy – Interestingly, only the first that seems to have had some production money on it. The line ain’t worth it.
17. The Bags – OK, and here’s another. I’m sure the COI will buy it.
18. The Little Things – Lists are good, too. With a song.
19. The Sky is Falling – Some more production bucks. Not a bad line. Motivated? Highest rate to date.
20. Think Again – Yeah, well. The money is coming out now. Where from?
21. This is not a test – Yay! Another list!
22. This is the World – Or... don’t cut a tree down that’s already doing its job. Nice production on low budget, though.
23. What Can Regular People Do? – Follow more lists. It works in creative eco ads, anyway.
I still think ours is... was pretty good.
Here's the submission notes:
A simple ad for a simple notion: green IS good, but only if you really think about all aspects very carefully.
Many of us have bought into the notion of offsetting the carbon consequences of our lifestyles. And it is certainly better than nothing, But only so long as the initiative is worthy and well run.
Some schemes still operate on the basis of planting a tree to achieve a balance that will be unlikely to make itself felt for many years, if at all. And time is of the essence, as tipping points are being talked of in terms of decades.
Some of these can of course still be viable and good to support. But, as with all things sold in the name of ‘green’, one needs to always challenge such efforts to justify their environmental value, their envIROI (which is not the same as monetary ROI, as you can make a financial investment in our kids’ future that may not pay back monetarily) before committing hard-earned, and highly useful, funds without thinking, simply to ‘buy-off’ a sense of responsibility for one’s actions.
The facts of deforestation and national emissions of the world’s current greatest greenhouse gas polluter are a matter of public record. The logic of where our priorities should lie in this instance, are our own. There will be hurdles, to be sure, and this is of course a plea more for preservation rather than reduction, but we think it is one worth making, to be considered and, if necessary, sensibly debated.
Other than a bit of time, this ad cost nothing and used no resources... at all. Which is quite an ideal metaphor for the message being conveyed...
IF you think about it!
ps: No trees were harmed in the making of this commercial. But a nice weed didn’t make it. Sorry.
Maybe I should have been nicer about daft celebs and meaningless platitudes. They were the judges after all. Maybe not so daft to see who it was aimed at.
And now... YouTube!
Which reminds me, it's the Green Awards to... night? I entered last year but decided against this ever again having seen who the judges were (for a creative contest - even if it's a people's choice, which I often prefer, there is always pre-selection... and agendas) and what they voted into the finals.
Here's one that may win there (it shows a lady's naught bits, which always helps, if you're being viral.): http://www.green.tv/brazilian
As a creative soul, and in the spirit of unsweetened grapes (it's all how you say it these days), here's my purely subjective review (hey, it's what blogs are for, and I've found that playing coy gets you nowhere) of what beat us:
1. Are You Game? – First up. Mentions Al Gore. Twice. Darn, should have thought of that!
2. Change the way you think. – Some nice imagery, I guess.
3. Cheeto and Vinn – OK. Singled-minded and funny. Gets the point across. I’m wishing we’d gone the 60’ option now.
4. Decisions – Again, not bad imagery. But hard to get ‘into’.
5. Gaia's Lament – yeah, well. Whatever.
6. Get Your Green on – And there’s a single out soon, too:)
7. Green – Nice. Yet one of the lowest ratings so far.
8. I Did Nothn' – A good line in there somewhere.
9. Keep it Equal – Nice idea. Neat editting.
10. Lights Out – OK, so it’s campaignable. Worth two in the finals?
11. Perry the Cockroach – Um, pass.
12. Plastic Ocean – Nice, simple idea.
13. Roachie Enviro Contest – If you’re going to use music, it seems it is better if wra... er... rapped.
14. Small Changes – I’m just guessing, but I think going with plastic bags would make one a shoe-in.
15. Small Steps – Sort of cute.
16. Support Good Hot – Energy – Interestingly, only the first that seems to have had some production money on it. The line ain’t worth it.
17. The Bags – OK, and here’s another. I’m sure the COI will buy it.
18. The Little Things – Lists are good, too. With a song.
19. The Sky is Falling – Some more production bucks. Not a bad line. Motivated? Highest rate to date.
20. Think Again – Yeah, well. The money is coming out now. Where from?
21. This is not a test – Yay! Another list!
22. This is the World – Or... don’t cut a tree down that’s already doing its job. Nice production on low budget, though.
23. What Can Regular People Do? – Follow more lists. It works in creative eco ads, anyway.
I still think ours is... was pretty good.
Here's the submission notes:
A simple ad for a simple notion: green IS good, but only if you really think about all aspects very carefully.
Many of us have bought into the notion of offsetting the carbon consequences of our lifestyles. And it is certainly better than nothing, But only so long as the initiative is worthy and well run.
Some schemes still operate on the basis of planting a tree to achieve a balance that will be unlikely to make itself felt for many years, if at all. And time is of the essence, as tipping points are being talked of in terms of decades.
Some of these can of course still be viable and good to support. But, as with all things sold in the name of ‘green’, one needs to always challenge such efforts to justify their environmental value, their envIROI (which is not the same as monetary ROI, as you can make a financial investment in our kids’ future that may not pay back monetarily) before committing hard-earned, and highly useful, funds without thinking, simply to ‘buy-off’ a sense of responsibility for one’s actions.
The facts of deforestation and national emissions of the world’s current greatest greenhouse gas polluter are a matter of public record. The logic of where our priorities should lie in this instance, are our own. There will be hurdles, to be sure, and this is of course a plea more for preservation rather than reduction, but we think it is one worth making, to be considered and, if necessary, sensibly debated.
Other than a bit of time, this ad cost nothing and used no resources... at all. Which is quite an ideal metaphor for the message being conveyed...
IF you think about it!
ps: No trees were harmed in the making of this commercial. But a nice weed didn’t make it. Sorry.
Maybe I should have been nicer about daft celebs and meaningless platitudes. They were the judges after all. Maybe not so daft to see who it was aimed at.
And now... YouTube!
Which reminds me, it's the Green Awards to... night? I entered last year but decided against this ever again having seen who the judges were (for a creative contest - even if it's a people's choice, which I often prefer, there is always pre-selection... and agendas) and what they voted into the finals.
Here's one that may win there (it shows a lady's naught bits, which always helps, if you're being viral.): http://www.green.tv/brazilian
Saturday, October 20, 2007
What we need are more commitees - report
Or... not. ISBA issues guidelines to aid green ad claims
Another for the ToRoRAVA (talk or research or report always vs. action) Files.
Actually, I think Chris' 5 points about covers things, but I'm sure 'a wide-ranging set of guidelines on environmental claims written by a working group' will go on to clarify the issue greatly.
However, in light of how those from other bodies such as the ASA get treated, one wonders what, exactly, the difference will be.
Sadly it is only money that matters. Even more sadly, it seems the rewards go to those who make it short term (and move on quickly on the perceived kudos), irrespective to the eventual costs, to brand, profits... or planet.
Another for the ToRoRAVA (talk or research or report always vs. action) Files.
Actually, I think Chris' 5 points about covers things, but I'm sure 'a wide-ranging set of guidelines on environmental claims written by a working group' will go on to clarify the issue greatly.
However, in light of how those from other bodies such as the ASA get treated, one wonders what, exactly, the difference will be.
Sadly it is only money that matters. Even more sadly, it seems the rewards go to those who make it short term (and move on quickly on the perceived kudos), irrespective to the eventual costs, to brand, profits... or planet.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
'Going green's divine, but, forgive me, just green...er' is less fine.'
LESS IS NOT GREEN
Amen.
However, and I take a deep breathe as I write this, we need to walk the line between what is just plain 'wrong' (I mean ethically and morally if not factually) and allowing what's necessary to encourage better (and, one hopes, better and better...) behaviour towards a practical ideal.
If one accepts (as I do) the current necessity in a consumer driven ('scuse pun) world (with time poor demands on income earners and/or social pressures) for, say, a car, I need to know whose 'pollute' less so I may either applaud or make a purchase.
As you say, how that gets conveyed adequately, especially in a competitive framework, is key.
A shame that so few in 'marketing' seem to see it as anything other than a quick fix, at least in how it all gets conveyed to squeeze the silliest extra pantone shade of green out of any claim.
'To go green is divine, but, forgive me, just green...'er's less fine.'
ps: For now at least, you get a very irritating pop-up form Conqueror that has a rather fun doodle mouse thing, which in turn leads to a competition. I'm not sure if it is worth the effort as there seems to be no money, but then profile can be worth more.
Also I do note a lot is on carbon offsetting, and in light of the main piece that is... interesting.
Amen.
However, and I take a deep breathe as I write this, we need to walk the line between what is just plain 'wrong' (I mean ethically and morally if not factually) and allowing what's necessary to encourage better (and, one hopes, better and better...) behaviour towards a practical ideal.
If one accepts (as I do) the current necessity in a consumer driven ('scuse pun) world (with time poor demands on income earners and/or social pressures) for, say, a car, I need to know whose 'pollute' less so I may either applaud or make a purchase.
As you say, how that gets conveyed adequately, especially in a competitive framework, is key.
A shame that so few in 'marketing' seem to see it as anything other than a quick fix, at least in how it all gets conveyed to squeeze the silliest extra pantone shade of green out of any claim.
'To go green is divine, but, forgive me, just green...'er's less fine.'
ps: For now at least, you get a very irritating pop-up form Conqueror that has a rather fun doodle mouse thing, which in turn leads to a competition. I'm not sure if it is worth the effort as there seems to be no money, but then profile can be worth more.
Also I do note a lot is on carbon offsetting, and in light of the main piece that is... interesting.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Spice as nice
Tesco recruits Spice Girls for Christmas campaign
I read that what they really, really want is a Lear each in case of hissy fits en route.
If true, I'll be interested to see how that gets worked into the green agenda.
Every little bit helps!
Guardian - If you wanna be my grocer
Mad - Will Tesco be the first and last Spice sponsor?
Speaking of getting 'on board', for an entity keen on 'looking' green at least, the predilections of Squander Spices will make for an interesting sell.
Hers and hers Priuses to the Lears to see how ethically the sweatshops are run?
I read that what they really, really want is a Lear each in case of hissy fits en route.
If true, I'll be interested to see how that gets worked into the green agenda.
Every little bit helps!
Guardian - If you wanna be my grocer
Mad - Will Tesco be the first and last Spice sponsor?
Speaking of getting 'on board', for an entity keen on 'looking' green at least, the predilections of Squander Spices will make for an interesting sell.
Hers and hers Priuses to the Lears to see how ethically the sweatshops are run?
Cynical... nous?
Toothless ASA
Who is not aware of ad campaigns that had the realities of such as the ASA's procedures factored into the production shedules?
I was recently told of one guerilla ad/marketing/PR coordinated 'launch' that involved doing something designed to:
a) Get complained about (PR)
b) If that doesn't work naturally, make sure it does via a tame Daily Mail reporter
c) Make a fuss about being complained about (more PR)
d) Concede (even more PR)
e) Make a fuss of the compromise (yeah, you guessed it)
f) Try and score a puff peice in the Sunday's about how it all happened (yawn)
Did I miss anything?
It's often worth looking at just how large the print run is as this can still involve a cost disincentive if it is a full national.
Digital means so much can be a one off that is easily, and cheaply sacrificed.
Are they still eligible for awards if pulled?
ASA gets tough on advertising green claims
Climate Change Corp - Public gets wise to ‘greenwashing’
Wise yes, but still poorly served in making good decisions. And the current situation serves the overall cause of better environmental practice and behaviours poorly.
You have kindly added, in the form of the 'FTSE 100 greenwashers and greenwinners' survey, yet another interesting if rather meaningless effort to muddy already murky waters.
At least M&S is at the top of this one, as it was in another I had, but yet another had Tesco tops. Three in one week. What's a consumer to do?
Probably, and I'm just guessing here, ignore the whole lot. Which makes them very expensive exercises in a thriving and lucrative comms industry that has little to DO with actually making much difference on the ground with the majority of individuals who matter.
Who is not aware of ad campaigns that had the realities of such as the ASA's procedures factored into the production shedules?
I was recently told of one guerilla ad/marketing/PR coordinated 'launch' that involved doing something designed to:
a) Get complained about (PR)
b) If that doesn't work naturally, make sure it does via a tame Daily Mail reporter
c) Make a fuss about being complained about (more PR)
d) Concede (even more PR)
e) Make a fuss of the compromise (yeah, you guessed it)
f) Try and score a puff peice in the Sunday's about how it all happened (yawn)
Did I miss anything?
It's often worth looking at just how large the print run is as this can still involve a cost disincentive if it is a full national.
Digital means so much can be a one off that is easily, and cheaply sacrificed.
Are they still eligible for awards if pulled?
ASA gets tough on advertising green claims
Climate Change Corp - Public gets wise to ‘greenwashing’
Wise yes, but still poorly served in making good decisions. And the current situation serves the overall cause of better environmental practice and behaviours poorly.
You have kindly added, in the form of the 'FTSE 100 greenwashers and greenwinners' survey, yet another interesting if rather meaningless effort to muddy already murky waters.
At least M&S is at the top of this one, as it was in another I had, but yet another had Tesco tops. Three in one week. What's a consumer to do?
Probably, and I'm just guessing here, ignore the whole lot. Which makes them very expensive exercises in a thriving and lucrative comms industry that has little to DO with actually making much difference on the ground with the majority of individuals who matter.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Message from the front
GREENPEACE AND FRIENDS OF THE EARTH - BOTH USING YOUTUBE
Whale & Chips - Can't fault it/them. More power to this kind of activity, which is where Greenpeace excels.
Shop Local - It's well done, and I guess gets a message across. But from my earliest days it was dinned into me by a succession of CDs that, while fun, devoting the majority of your ad to the negative is often taking the easy, soft and otherwise not so effective option.
OK, so there's an exclusive dig at Tesco (missing me completely as we have the choice of Morrisons or Somerfield). Fair 'nuff. I guess they symbolise the evil empire to many (odd they topped the Climate Brand Index thingie on these pages t'other day, though).
But really what else did I get? Some nice local folk were going to vanish. Tell me about it. Our High Street has more boarded up shopfronts and charity shops than there are actual businesses!
It certainly is not easy. And there are a myriad issues to address, from parking convenience to time pressures to costs (though often local can be cheaper) and the fact that council rates are not exactly helping.
It would be neat to see the sense of fun of this execution being injected into a positive branding message for the quality of the produce and the experience.
I love walking the strip and getting fresh food that tastes 100% better, and all with a cheery bit of personal service taboot.
Trouble is, they don't usually offer this on Sundays, which is often the only day I am free to help with the shopping.
ADDENDUM, thanks to Dave -
Talkingretail.com today reports that Tesco comes out on top of a new 'climate brand index'. This has been launched to track consumer perceptions of how a business is performing in terms of climate change issues.
Interesting to note that BP manages second place.
Me again: Meanwhile..... M&S, Sainsbury's and Waitrose top green supermarkets study
Whale & Chips - Can't fault it/them. More power to this kind of activity, which is where Greenpeace excels.
Shop Local - It's well done, and I guess gets a message across. But from my earliest days it was dinned into me by a succession of CDs that, while fun, devoting the majority of your ad to the negative is often taking the easy, soft and otherwise not so effective option.
OK, so there's an exclusive dig at Tesco (missing me completely as we have the choice of Morrisons or Somerfield). Fair 'nuff. I guess they symbolise the evil empire to many (odd they topped the Climate Brand Index thingie on these pages t'other day, though).
But really what else did I get? Some nice local folk were going to vanish. Tell me about it. Our High Street has more boarded up shopfronts and charity shops than there are actual businesses!
It certainly is not easy. And there are a myriad issues to address, from parking convenience to time pressures to costs (though often local can be cheaper) and the fact that council rates are not exactly helping.
It would be neat to see the sense of fun of this execution being injected into a positive branding message for the quality of the produce and the experience.
I love walking the strip and getting fresh food that tastes 100% better, and all with a cheery bit of personal service taboot.
Trouble is, they don't usually offer this on Sundays, which is often the only day I am free to help with the shopping.
ADDENDUM, thanks to Dave -
Talkingretail.com today reports that Tesco comes out on top of a new 'climate brand index'. This has been launched to track consumer perceptions of how a business is performing in terms of climate change issues.
Interesting to note that BP manages second place.
Me again: Meanwhile..... M&S, Sainsbury's and Waitrose top green supermarkets study
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Laugh, I could have...
Fox's Glacier Mints 'carbon footprint'
Nice to see the funny side being aired. I'm sure Al Gore* would approve!
But the way things might be headed, Fox might just soon be able to walk up* there by pushing the sand all around into a ramp:)
*Peppy having drowned on his 60 mile swim.
Nice to see the funny side being aired. I'm sure Al Gore* would approve!
But the way things might be headed, Fox might just soon be able to walk up* there by pushing the sand all around into a ramp:)
*Peppy having drowned on his 60 mile swim.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
And I still have all my teeth!
Junkk.com costs a lot of money. And time. So only today I was at a networking bash trying to drum up some work for the other thing I do - copywriting - to pay a few bills.
I am therefore not encouraged by this: THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IN ADVERTISING
I print it all here as there are some key bits I need to highlight:
Don't look away. I'm not covered with boils or zits. I am not unwashed or uneducated. I don't shout, play my mobile phone loudly, or leak spittle onto my chin. I don't put my feet onto the seat in front of me. I don't rabbit on about Iraq, the common market or Cherie Blair's mouth.
(Perhaps I should?) I am not the ugly man on the Victoria train begging for money, who always gets off at Brixton.
It's just that I'm old. No, please don't look away.
It's a cardinal sin in advertising- especially in London. Everybody knows about it, and nobody does anything about it. I've been to all the headhunters, and as soon as they see me, they have said, one after another, "it's ageism, I'm sorry, it's London. I can't do anything about it. It's just the way it is." Is there anywhere a copywriter in their 40's? Their 50's? What about an art director in their late 50's? With awards, too?
Talking about headhunters? Yes 39 of them - that takes in pretty much everyone, doesn't it? I've yet to hear from any of them. Are they useless or plain *****ing useless, or are they just following orders? And I still apply for stuff all over the world on the net, but as you know, of a 100, only two ever bother to reply, months later, to say that job has been cancelled.
The law supposedly banning ageism came into force in 2006.There was even an ad campaign by BBH. Did anybody register a slightest difference? No.
Another Labour whitewash. There are agencies with bean bags, that resemble kindergartens. Specially geared to the young, obviously. It's deliberately difficult for anyone over 30 to get up from those. Although I've stopped putting my date of birth on the CV, it doesn't take a genius to work out your age.
What was my biggest sin? I went abroad. In that time, the swallowing up of agencies happened. Everyone was bought up, or wanted to be bought up, and they still do. Everyone I ever worked with, is and has been, out of work for decades. Talented people. Big shots. People who were my creative directors, with awards and fancy cars. They're existing on their spouses' salaries- women always manage to get work somewhere, it seems. That's of those I've managed to trace. The rest have disappeared. They're probably running antique shops, dog obedience academies, accordion schools or have become driving instructors.
The biggest insult? Today I got a mailer from Sun Life- there's an irony- about a funeral plan
RE: THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IN ADVERTISING
by: BR team
Unfortunately, the facts support Beverly’s experience. According to the IPA census report published in January, the mean age of the 17,367 people working in creative and media agencies is 33.4, with 47.5% of the permanent workforce aged 30 or under. Only 13.2% are aged 31-40 and only 4.6% are aged 51-60 (or 795 people in the whole industry. And for that fast growing UK age demographic of 60+? Only 94 people or 0.5% work in advertising.
So I wrote in:
I hear you (amazingly, without the need for a hearing aid, too).
It's odd, isn't it? All those committees and talking heads spouting off about legalisation and all, but when push comes to shove there's an awful lot that needn't happen between CV and interview post sound-bite. But a equal-opp box is still ticked each second, I'm sure.
Me....? I was thinking of knocking at least a decade off (as my kids are not even teenagers yet), investing in some Grecian 2000 and lying through my teeth to get at least to a point in a personal mano-a-munchkin exchange in which 'their' overt ageism will be worse than 'my' fibbing on a form. Who dares, wins... compo! I really don't understand what the problem is in their heads. As a a twenty-something writer my loyalty was about as reliable as my attention span and I'd jump for a tenner more, or less if there was a chance at tee-vee. What do they think we mature types are going to do - croak pulling an all-nighter or leave within a year?
Or maybe I'll just work virtually, as really it what you can do that matters, not who you are. The porty, after all... is all, right? Or, from what you say, perhaps not.
What was that movie about the McCarthy era when those with talent and experience had to hire 'acceptable' faces to 'be' them just to get work: The Front?
I'm thinking it might be a wheeze to create a virtual agency of hip young things who don't need to be paid so much on what they can do as how they look, all 'fed' by the real brains who don't fit the image but can still crank out great work (that also works for clients' bottom lines every bit as much as Ivy-envy-generating awards) from the comfort of home.
Make a heck of a reality TV show... if any chrome-dome, Specsavers-sporting yoof types in broadcasting are up for a real idea with some legs:)
Failing which, well, looking on the bright side, my car insurance is getting cheaper!
Sorry, Junkk-regulars, that this is not too much on eco-mode, but I needed to vent a bit on the state of how things get run, and it does extend to government and beyond, so it could well extend to how this planet is gettingmis-managed by hype over experience at a stretch.
ADDENDUM
The incendiary tax?
In the 'fight back', I have noticed the well-trained..er.. briefed cabinet clones and supporting sympathetic/sycophantic media are spinning this as applicable to a very small number of folk and dependents who don't deserve 'it'.
I'll have to leave the reality of that to the lies, damn lies and political number crunchers to fight over.
All I know is that when my Mum hit 75 she could no longer look after herself. So we sold her big house and popped her in a small one next to ours so I could keep an eye on her. Ten years on the system still seems to be working out OK but we're hitting end point soon I fear.
At no point has she been a real burden on 'society' as the family has looked after her, and her own funds have kept her comfortable and helped us in doing so too.
Thing is, at 50, and having worked from home for a decade, with my old CV, any attempt to hit the workforce as a consequence of various downturns, combined with the farce that is the equal opportunity legislation on any practical application (ask anyone over 40 - who admits to it - how a CV gets treated), means I am looking at a very long creek ahead and a very short paddle.
What's left of Mum's legacy would go a long way to mitigating that and help me feel a bit better about where my future will be placed without being a burden on the kids or society either.
So to all those well paid and golden pensioned Ministers and media luvvies who can't see how this might play well with those who do work hard and try and keep things in the family, I have a very short phrase for you: at least I still have my vote.
I am therefore not encouraged by this: THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IN ADVERTISING
I print it all here as there are some key bits I need to highlight:
Don't look away. I'm not covered with boils or zits. I am not unwashed or uneducated. I don't shout, play my mobile phone loudly, or leak spittle onto my chin. I don't put my feet onto the seat in front of me. I don't rabbit on about Iraq, the common market or Cherie Blair's mouth.
(Perhaps I should?) I am not the ugly man on the Victoria train begging for money, who always gets off at Brixton.
It's just that I'm old. No, please don't look away.
It's a cardinal sin in advertising- especially in London. Everybody knows about it, and nobody does anything about it. I've been to all the headhunters, and as soon as they see me, they have said, one after another, "it's ageism, I'm sorry, it's London. I can't do anything about it. It's just the way it is." Is there anywhere a copywriter in their 40's? Their 50's? What about an art director in their late 50's? With awards, too?
Talking about headhunters? Yes 39 of them - that takes in pretty much everyone, doesn't it? I've yet to hear from any of them. Are they useless or plain *****ing useless, or are they just following orders? And I still apply for stuff all over the world on the net, but as you know, of a 100, only two ever bother to reply, months later, to say that job has been cancelled.
The law supposedly banning ageism came into force in 2006.There was even an ad campaign by BBH. Did anybody register a slightest difference? No.
Another Labour whitewash. There are agencies with bean bags, that resemble kindergartens. Specially geared to the young, obviously. It's deliberately difficult for anyone over 30 to get up from those. Although I've stopped putting my date of birth on the CV, it doesn't take a genius to work out your age.
What was my biggest sin? I went abroad. In that time, the swallowing up of agencies happened. Everyone was bought up, or wanted to be bought up, and they still do. Everyone I ever worked with, is and has been, out of work for decades. Talented people. Big shots. People who were my creative directors, with awards and fancy cars. They're existing on their spouses' salaries- women always manage to get work somewhere, it seems. That's of those I've managed to trace. The rest have disappeared. They're probably running antique shops, dog obedience academies, accordion schools or have become driving instructors.
The biggest insult? Today I got a mailer from Sun Life- there's an irony- about a funeral plan
RE: THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IN ADVERTISING
by: BR team
Unfortunately, the facts support Beverly’s experience. According to the IPA census report published in January, the mean age of the 17,367 people working in creative and media agencies is 33.4, with 47.5% of the permanent workforce aged 30 or under. Only 13.2% are aged 31-40 and only 4.6% are aged 51-60 (or 795 people in the whole industry. And for that fast growing UK age demographic of 60+? Only 94 people or 0.5% work in advertising.
So I wrote in:
I hear you (amazingly, without the need for a hearing aid, too).
It's odd, isn't it? All those committees and talking heads spouting off about legalisation and all, but when push comes to shove there's an awful lot that needn't happen between CV and interview post sound-bite. But a equal-opp box is still ticked each second, I'm sure.
Me....? I was thinking of knocking at least a decade off (as my kids are not even teenagers yet), investing in some Grecian 2000 and lying through my teeth to get at least to a point in a personal mano-a-munchkin exchange in which 'their' overt ageism will be worse than 'my' fibbing on a form. Who dares, wins... compo! I really don't understand what the problem is in their heads. As a a twenty-something writer my loyalty was about as reliable as my attention span and I'd jump for a tenner more, or less if there was a chance at tee-vee. What do they think we mature types are going to do - croak pulling an all-nighter or leave within a year?
Or maybe I'll just work virtually, as really it what you can do that matters, not who you are. The porty, after all... is all, right? Or, from what you say, perhaps not.
What was that movie about the McCarthy era when those with talent and experience had to hire 'acceptable' faces to 'be' them just to get work: The Front?
I'm thinking it might be a wheeze to create a virtual agency of hip young things who don't need to be paid so much on what they can do as how they look, all 'fed' by the real brains who don't fit the image but can still crank out great work (that also works for clients' bottom lines every bit as much as Ivy-envy-generating awards) from the comfort of home.
Make a heck of a reality TV show... if any chrome-dome, Specsavers-sporting yoof types in broadcasting are up for a real idea with some legs:)
Failing which, well, looking on the bright side, my car insurance is getting cheaper!
Sorry, Junkk-regulars, that this is not too much on eco-mode, but I needed to vent a bit on the state of how things get run, and it does extend to government and beyond, so it could well extend to how this planet is gettingmis-managed by hype over experience at a stretch.
ADDENDUM
The incendiary tax?
In the 'fight back', I have noticed the well-trained..er.. briefed cabinet clones and supporting sympathetic/sycophantic media are spinning this as applicable to a very small number of folk and dependents who don't deserve 'it'.
I'll have to leave the reality of that to the lies, damn lies and political number crunchers to fight over.
All I know is that when my Mum hit 75 she could no longer look after herself. So we sold her big house and popped her in a small one next to ours so I could keep an eye on her. Ten years on the system still seems to be working out OK but we're hitting end point soon I fear.
At no point has she been a real burden on 'society' as the family has looked after her, and her own funds have kept her comfortable and helped us in doing so too.
Thing is, at 50, and having worked from home for a decade, with my old CV, any attempt to hit the workforce as a consequence of various downturns, combined with the farce that is the equal opportunity legislation on any practical application (ask anyone over 40 - who admits to it - how a CV gets treated), means I am looking at a very long creek ahead and a very short paddle.
What's left of Mum's legacy would go a long way to mitigating that and help me feel a bit better about where my future will be placed without being a burden on the kids or society either.
So to all those well paid and golden pensioned Ministers and media luvvies who can't see how this might play well with those who do work hard and try and keep things in the family, I have a very short phrase for you: at least I still have my vote.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Trust me, I'm in (green) advertising
'False' green ad complaints rise
I cannot for the life of me understand why it gets done or what is in the heads of those who think they can get away with it.,
Do they not realise that by creating a near automatic aura of doubt on anything conveying a green message by such actions, far from leading us (the public, authorities and commercial world) towards a mutually rewarding era of environmentally (and financially) rewarding relationships, these cynical efforts are simply making it more difficult and stealing time that is already precious to effect changes in public behaviour?
There are clear guidelines out there, but a weekly read of the ASA adjudications makes depressing reading as to the motives and/or competence of those involved.
I'm not big on negativity, but I'm seriously thinking of creating a 'wall of sLime' on Junkk.com where these examples get hung up for all to see, along with the names of those involved in their creation.
Joel Makover - The Greening of P.R.: Read All About It
'The world of public relations has discovered green with a vengeance, and the big global firms seem locked, loaded, and ready to fire up their drum beating.'
Consider a just-released survey by Ipsos Reid, which found that "Consumers appear to be wary of companies who label their products as being 'green', or environmentally friendly." The study found that seven in ten (70%) Americans either "strongly" (12%) or "somewhat" agree (58%) that "when companies call a product 'green' (meaning better for the environment), it is usually just a marketing tactic."
These P.R. firms will have their work cut out for them.
I'm not the only one with a watching brief, it seems.
ASA
Indy - Innocent found guilty of making false health claims - Why on earth would they do it? Great product. Great brand. Great reputation. But then they have grown to a size where there are scores of levels of munchkins vying for their place in the corporate pie. I had high hopes of getting something meaningful going with both Junkk.com and RE:tie vis a vis their commitment to re-everything, but hit a wall of trendy young things in the 'marketing' dept. who seemed unable to take a message let alone pass it on. Sad.
Brand republic - Smoothies ad pulled up over detox claims
Guardian - Innocent found guilty over smoothie health claims - well, there's no such thing as ...
Indy - Can you not know that you are using forced labour? - Not really my usual cuppa this guy, but he kinda nails it. And OK, it isn't really right for this post, either.
Mad - Lost innocence
I think all it does is show how size can create all sorts of problems.
It is hard to imagine that in leaner times those running the show would not be on top of such things. But now there will be layer upon layer of departmental munchkins (just try getting past the bananaphone to talk to a sensible decision maker without getting all sorts of folk running turf interference these days) jockeying to make their mark, so such things creep in.
As to the McDonalds hook up... what is the problem? Surely getting something healthy...ier in there is better than nothing? And if one is of a campaigning bent, better to work from within than standing outside shouting all or nothing impracticalities. And who, beyond the media, are these excitable folk who can get so turned off by such commercial decisions? I felt the same way over the hoo-haa that Anita Roddick had flogged off Body Shop. It was hers to do with as she felt. And if feeling generous (if change was her aim) was the risk of comprising the Body Shop brand not worth elevated the aspirations of the parent ?
Mind you, it can create some fun. I suspect those who bought out Ben & Jerry's haven't a clue what is going on sometimes: link
Brand Republic - NOT SO INNOCENT
I was going to post but it was more question so forgive me taking the more direct route.
Having had a rather frustrating time of late with innocent (there are aspects of our businesses that suggest(ed) synergy), which I have pretty much identified with their growth curve out-stripping their original (and, I believe, sincerely held) stated desire to not be like the rest, your comment resonated.
However, as I blogged (link above), I laid this more at the door corporate B*****cks and gatekeeper culture. But you seem to be suggesting that there is something more predictable than even this. You would not have written what you did had you not believed it, but I must say I am surprised that marketing gurus, much less those whose hunger has pushed them to darker places, could simply feel the risk of such a strategy could be worth it.
Look how much damage this one small thing has created for the brand, versus what minute % increase they may have generated overstated the benefits of this product.
I truly hope you are wrong. But fear you may be right.
Guardian - Hot air
I'm holding my breath.
Just as a precaution, mind.
I cannot for the life of me understand why it gets done or what is in the heads of those who think they can get away with it.,
Do they not realise that by creating a near automatic aura of doubt on anything conveying a green message by such actions, far from leading us (the public, authorities and commercial world) towards a mutually rewarding era of environmentally (and financially) rewarding relationships, these cynical efforts are simply making it more difficult and stealing time that is already precious to effect changes in public behaviour?
There are clear guidelines out there, but a weekly read of the ASA adjudications makes depressing reading as to the motives and/or competence of those involved.
I'm not big on negativity, but I'm seriously thinking of creating a 'wall of sLime' on Junkk.com where these examples get hung up for all to see, along with the names of those involved in their creation.
Joel Makover - The Greening of P.R.: Read All About It
'The world of public relations has discovered green with a vengeance, and the big global firms seem locked, loaded, and ready to fire up their drum beating.'
Consider a just-released survey by Ipsos Reid, which found that "Consumers appear to be wary of companies who label their products as being 'green', or environmentally friendly." The study found that seven in ten (70%) Americans either "strongly" (12%) or "somewhat" agree (58%) that "when companies call a product 'green' (meaning better for the environment), it is usually just a marketing tactic."
These P.R. firms will have their work cut out for them.
I'm not the only one with a watching brief, it seems.
ASA
Indy - Innocent found guilty of making false health claims - Why on earth would they do it? Great product. Great brand. Great reputation. But then they have grown to a size where there are scores of levels of munchkins vying for their place in the corporate pie. I had high hopes of getting something meaningful going with both Junkk.com and RE:tie vis a vis their commitment to re-everything, but hit a wall of trendy young things in the 'marketing' dept. who seemed unable to take a message let alone pass it on. Sad.
Brand republic - Smoothies ad pulled up over detox claims
Guardian - Innocent found guilty over smoothie health claims - well, there's no such thing as ...
Indy - Can you not know that you are using forced labour? - Not really my usual cuppa this guy, but he kinda nails it. And OK, it isn't really right for this post, either.
Mad - Lost innocence
I think all it does is show how size can create all sorts of problems.
It is hard to imagine that in leaner times those running the show would not be on top of such things. But now there will be layer upon layer of departmental munchkins (just try getting past the bananaphone to talk to a sensible decision maker without getting all sorts of folk running turf interference these days) jockeying to make their mark, so such things creep in.
As to the McDonalds hook up... what is the problem? Surely getting something healthy...ier in there is better than nothing? And if one is of a campaigning bent, better to work from within than standing outside shouting all or nothing impracticalities. And who, beyond the media, are these excitable folk who can get so turned off by such commercial decisions? I felt the same way over the hoo-haa that Anita Roddick had flogged off Body Shop. It was hers to do with as she felt. And if feeling generous (if change was her aim) was the risk of comprising the Body Shop brand not worth elevated the aspirations of the parent ?
Mind you, it can create some fun. I suspect those who bought out Ben & Jerry's haven't a clue what is going on sometimes: link
Brand Republic - NOT SO INNOCENT
I was going to post but it was more question so forgive me taking the more direct route.
Having had a rather frustrating time of late with innocent (there are aspects of our businesses that suggest(ed) synergy), which I have pretty much identified with their growth curve out-stripping their original (and, I believe, sincerely held) stated desire to not be like the rest, your comment resonated.
However, as I blogged (link above), I laid this more at the door corporate B*****cks and gatekeeper culture. But you seem to be suggesting that there is something more predictable than even this. You would not have written what you did had you not believed it, but I must say I am surprised that marketing gurus, much less those whose hunger has pushed them to darker places, could simply feel the risk of such a strategy could be worth it.
Look how much damage this one small thing has created for the brand, versus what minute % increase they may have generated overstated the benefits of this product.
I truly hope you are wrong. But fear you may be right.
Guardian - Hot air
I'm holding my breath.
Just as a precaution, mind.
Monday, October 01, 2007
The UK is also better than the Swiss at navies (for now)
I clicked on this with some anticipation: Blue skies, yellow sand and shades of green
And this did look like encouraging news: There’s little doubt that the UK is ahead of the green game.
However, I was then moved to comment:
Well, I'll take your word for it that the UK is 'ahead' of Spain, at least.
Though I still chortle as I read my Indy and see an Evian ad or my Guardian and get a 4x4 tootling across the banner. And I must look out for bio at my local Morrisons.
Have fun at the conference. As it's a long way away and a tad pricey at £649+VAT for the day I would have loved to come but for various reasons cannot. I hope those who can afford the time and money to do so will have lots of lovely green wheezes.
Hence your report will be welcome.
And this did look like encouraging news: There’s little doubt that the UK is ahead of the green game.
However, I was then moved to comment:
Well, I'll take your word for it that the UK is 'ahead' of Spain, at least.
Though I still chortle as I read my Indy and see an Evian ad or my Guardian and get a 4x4 tootling across the banner. And I must look out for bio at my local Morrisons.
Have fun at the conference. As it's a long way away and a tad pricey at £649+VAT for the day I would have loved to come but for various reasons cannot. I hope those who can afford the time and money to do so will have lots of lovely green wheezes.
Hence your report will be welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)